Jack Reacher (2012)

Bourne Reacher

Tom Cruise knows more than anyone the limits of being able to control events. “Jack Reacher” comes after a bruising public divorce humiliation which included controversy regarding his religion. The movie’s opening PR campaign was also muted due to the ‘real world’ events in Newtown CT.  The suits in charge felt that a feature that begins with 5 people being randomly executed by a sniper might not play well with an audience still grieving the massacre of first graders by a gun totting madman.  This is a tough break for the producers - in this case Mr. Cruise himself. Nevertheless the show must go on and the film did manage to be the #2 box office gross for the weekend.  I sat with half a dozen elderly people on a Sunday night for the early show.  I was startled by the MPAA rating.   The scene in which the fingerless Russian Gangster (with a German accent) tries to force a man to chew off his own hand might have earned the picture an “R”; but since there was no nudity and little cursing it received the“PG 13” seal of approval.  Perhaps this rating inadvertently led to the dearth of teenagers amongst the crowd;  yes it was Sunday, but during Christmas break.  Or perhaps Mr. Cruise is losing touch with his core fan base. He was nearly 40 when most of them were born. There were posters in the lobby for other old men of the screen: Arnold Schawarzenegger and Sean Penn, have projects due out in early January.  Perhaps the action/adventure genre is some sort of balm for a certain class of older male stars recovering from nasty public divorces.  Arnold’s trailer failed to be promising but it was actually more entertaining than Tom’s 2 hour feature.

For those not in the loop - Jack Reacher is a character in a very popular serialized set of action/adventure novels by Lee Child .  I have not read “One Shot”, from which this film is based, but it sticks to the basic outline as it appears online in Wikipedia:

In an innocent heartland city, five murders with six shots are done by an expert sniper. The police quickly identify and arrest a suspect, and build a slam-dunk case with iron-clad evidence. But the accused man claims he's innocent and says "Get Jack Reacher." Reacher himself sees the news report and turns up in the city. The defense is immensely relieved; but Reacher has come to bury the guy. Shocked by the request of the accused, Reacher sets out to confirm for himself the absolute certainty of the man's guilt, but comes up with more than he bargained for.

Maybe Mr. Cruise should have picked a cleaner plot along the lines of Mr. Child’s “Nothing to Lose”:

Based in Colorado, traveling from the town of Hope to the town of Despair, it soon becomes clear that Reacher is an unwelcome visitor in a town with a lot of secrets to hide. Reacher cannot resist the opportunity to explore these secrets further, especially the peculiar town owner who has employed the majority of the population to work within his recycling factory.

In any event it is clear we are engaged in formulaic entertainment and not Strindberg. Nothing wrong with that, as Mr. Child, whose real name is Mr. Grant, doesn’t pretend.... and who wants to sit through Strindberg in a movie theater (or maybe even a theater theater for that matter).  Wikipedia give us insight into his choice of the name of the ex-military supercop:

While unemployed and midway through writing the first novel with the character as yet unnamed, Lee Child visited his local supermarket with his wife. An elderly lady approached him and asked him to reach an item off a high shelf for her. His wife commented: "Hey if this writing thing doesn't work out, you can be a reacher in a supermarket."

It would be interesting to see a film about the life of Mr. Lee/Grant with some insight into his own need to change his nom de guerre. Mr. Cruise, however, need to focus on the Dough Ray Me. Audiences never warmed to Cruise as anything but a Mission Impossible sort of guy as his most recent “Rock of Ages” has proved (along with “Magnolia”, “Eyes Wide Shut”, “Lions for Lambs”...). Cruise’s middle-brow choice of material matches his choice of director. One might have thought Christopher McQuarrie’s writing credit on Mr. Cruise’s “Valkyrie” would have earned him a spot on a “do not call” list.  But in all deference to Mr. McQuarrie one senses Cruise-control in Reacher. Tom isn’t searching for direction in these self-produced projects as he has figured it all out. Unfortunately the audience is left with a stilted vanity set-piece rather than a solid action/adventure film.

Jack Reacher comes from a tradition of American super-heroes who are suspect by the public at large in their pursuit of a greater good. The fathers of this genre would be George Trendle and Fran Striker who gave us the Lone Ranger and his grand nephew (yes they are literally related) The Green Hornet.  “Why do you wear a mask Lone Ranger?” could easily be transposed to “Why do you live as a unemployed vagrant Mr. Reacher?”. A web poster named Jon Glade in an online response on Yahoo answers examines the Lone Ranger’s need for anonymity (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080515205634AAJrQvl) :

There is an interesting factor in American literature that is called "the American monomyth," which essentially concerns itself with someone who is a member of the masses coming forth to serve the cause of justice (or the needs of society, which may not always be the same thing), righting a bad situation, and then disappearing back into the masses. In other words, America is unique in the fact that it is predisposed to accepting the idea of anonymous avengers.

Whatever one thinks of Tom’s religion it is not hard to understand his ‘spirtual’ connection a loner who is selflessly battling the forces of evil despite popular opinion. To quote Tom’s infamous Scientology video in which he describes his devotion to the creed: “Being a Scientologist when you drive past an accident it’s not like anyone else. As you drive past, you know you have to do something about it, because you know you’re the only one that can really help” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0   section 1:00-1:16) .  And how does public respond? The answer is online at: www.TomCruiseIsNuts.com  . Tom and Jack have the weight of the world on their shoulders and no one really appreciates their struggle. Clumsy exposition gives us the bedrock of Jack’s lonely battle - he is a much decorated army hero who spent a career as a military policeman.  He has had run ins with the brass who demoted him only to have him rise to a high rank again.  Suddenly, without explanation, he returns to the US only to live an invisible life and collect cash from military a pension at various Western Union locations. As the story unfolds Tom/Jack reveals what makes him tick. In a monologue while looking out at a busy office building filled with workers: (am paraphrasing) ”I spent 25 years listening to my government tell me I was fighting for freedom... look at all those people slaving away out there;  overwhelmed by debt and worry... trying to make ends meet.... are they free? they just wish they could live like me.” Perhaps Tom/Jack overestimates the desire of the general public to live a life of violence and insecurity. Certainly Tom seems unable to distinguish his adolescent fantasies of a middle aged multi-millionaire movie star from the challenges facing working people.  The bottom line is that Jack/Tom has a personal moral code of right and wrong and his life will be dedicated to HIS truth. 

The most obvious parallel would be to the Bourne action/adventure series, featuring a disillusioned secret agent. Doug Liman’s films, unlike Tom’s Reacher, were compelling and fun. Matt Damon’s Bourne is a trusting good soldier who embarks on a journey of discovery where he, and the audience, experience the heartbreaking realization that his beloved country has betrayed him. Jack Reacher is merely giving speeches.  We are told, in painfully drawn narration, what he is like, what he has done.... we see  nothing of his journey of disaffection. Tom/Jack is a crack investigator, marksman, guerrilla fighter, memorizer of data... but his motives are drawn with the subtlety of a good guy’s white hat.   There is nothing behind his anger except the cold heroic bather. The appalling glacially paced script combined with an endless supply of comic book heavies headed by the aforementioned fingerless German/Russian, makes the experience akin to watching the one movie available on an airplane during heavy turbulence.  (Incidentally the evil bad guy is played by an actual German - the famed director Werner Herzog - who seems to be proving that behind every great european auteur is a burning desire to be a Hollywood Star... or at least stand near one on the big screen....e.g. Francois Truffaut in “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” ).  It was nice to know that Robert Duvall can still be the eternal army cracker; although he has mellowed since “Apocalypse Now”.  The ingenue Rosamund Pike was forced to try and make us believe she found a shirtless Tom Cruise utterly irresistible.  Tom is hot... for a 50 year old guy. The idea that her character would have been drooling challenges credulity and speaks to the general disposition of people on the set refusing to tell Tom the emperor should put his shirt back on.  The stunt and fight scene shortcomings are too numerous to mention and one suspect’s Cruise’s megalomania at work - not one crew member had the courage to say, to borrow the pithy phrasing of the protagonist: “Tom this shit ain’t workin’”.  Actually that’s unfair, Reacher doesn’t seem to have the imagination to curse or the producers want to preserve the PG 13 rating - it would be more like - “Fight scenes... (beat, heavy breath) not workin’”.  This extends to the whole enterprise. In fact “Tom you’re old” might be added.

Unfortunately for future audiences more Reacher tombs are headed for the big screen. But we can all wish good things in the new year and maybe Tom will option the rights and decide to hand off the lead.  The bottom line is if you’re a omnipotent superstar you can create your own world. The challenge of making a great film about someone who lives in their own world is to work with people who collaboratively handle various aspects of the project.  Mr. Cruise has a reputation of being a doggedly hard worker and consummate professional. Unfortunately what is required is a steely determined artistic vision; which in turn requires trusting powerful department heads to execute a plan.  It is hard to imagine seasoned professionals screening rushes and not commenting on the obvious flaws. More likely the production crew stepped back and nodded:“hey Tom it’s your show... you’re in-charge”.  One can imagine Tom gleefully doing donuts in the souped up muscle cars; executing complicated maneuvers well into the wee hours of the morning until things were “perfect”.  Everyone must have known the scenes would be tedious.... but who wants to tell the boss... especially since he’s a decent guy who’s working so damn hard. In the end the key to total control is knowing who to trust. Judging by this feature Mr. Cruise lives in a very lonely world.... someone needs to tell him. Ironically Jack Reacher would have... but he wasn’t on set.

LINCOLN (2012)

Logging Lincoln

The first showing of Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln was packed. This is unusual for a relatively rural movie house, even during a Friday night of the Christmas holiday season.  The grey-haired crowed was pleased and there were even some applause during the closing credits.  A younger member of the audience, obviously dragged there by a well-intentioned elder, was less euphoric.  “Lincoln sure spent a lot of time talking in that house”. Although the young man probably wasn’t a seasoned moviegoer his criticism is on the mark and goes to the heart of the stylistic problem with Lincoln.  This work fails to be a movie driven by cinematic movement but a photographic representation of a “well-made play” driven by soliloquies. This is the wikipedia entry for form of a “well-made play”:

The form has a strong neoclassical flavor, involving a very tight plot and a climax that takes place very close to the end of the action, with most of the story taking place before the action of the play; much of the information regarding such previous action would be revealed through thinly veiled exposition. Following that would be a series of causally-related plot complications.


Spielberg’s work doesn’t exactly match this definition as the exposition is about as thinly veiled as a peacock on a snow drift.... but it was carefully crafted and hit its marks. It is odd to take issue with this film as most contemporary features are shoddily made and badly written.  It is, however, important to understand the context of this work. Steven Spielberg,  America’s most popular and successful director has undertaken a portrait of Abraham Lincoln,  American’s most revered President.  This is serious stuff... at least from Spielberg’s POV. The director has taken a special interest in the plight of African Americans.  Lincoln is his third feature examining “our peculiar institution”. (The other two: The Color Purple and Amistad).   Spielberg turned 18 when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was less than 6 months old. No doubt the racial struggle during the 1960s made an impression.  It is not surprising that “Lincoln” fails to be a biopic but rather the story of the President legally destroying slavery by carefully steering Congress to adopt the 13th amendment.  This is an interesting dramatic choice given Lincoln’s life. A few years back I took a tour of  the library of Congress was was told: aside from William Shakespeare, Abraham Lincoln is THE most popular subject for book writers.  I would note the new museum dedicated to our 16th President hosts The Lincoln Tower. This is a visual demonstration of his popularity with publishers : “the tower totals approximately 6,800 books. At three stories high, the tower represents just a fraction of the 15,000 titles written about Lincoln”. The myriad of topics include: his sexuality, his contentious relations with his family, his morphing attitudes towards race relations, his obscure origins, his fragile health, his depression, his love of the theater, his work as a lawyer..... and yet Spielberg chose the complicated political morass surrounding the updating of the Constitution as his centerpiece.

His screenplay was crafted by one of America’s premiere playwrights, Tony Kushner, and one of the country’s leading Presidential historians, Doris Kearns Goodwin. The idea was that the telling of this particular Constitutional struggle would illuminate the man.  Kushner did wonders painting the demon-like Roy Cohen in Angels in America; perhaps he could show the better angels of his nature and give us Lincoln. Kearns Goodwin would keep it historically accurate. Spielberg would handle the magic and spare no expense with the best acting and craft talent resulting in a serious general audience portrait of our most famous, yet enigmatic, President. There is a desire to define and honor our nation’s greatest leader.  Ironically the result a paean to all the things we think we know rather than a radical unfolding of that quixotic face that stares out from the five dollar bill. This film wants us to think of father Abraham more in the manner of father George.  Spielberg forgets that George stars out at us on our 1 dollars bills with a noble, direct gaze. Lincoln, in the 5 dollar portrait, looks off to the side in the same direction as the Mona Lisa.

Daniel Day Lewis continues his tradition of turning in a performance that overshadows his director and fellow cast-members. He IS the Lincoln we expect - saintly, self-deprecating, folksy and fierce. One laments the supporting cast who seem merely polished and professional.  There were solid performances and yet Lewis seemed to catapult the film into “what might have been”; whereas Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field et al were only as good as the surroundings.  Ironically the slew of African American performers were hard hit with a the dramatic challenge of being representatives of goodness under oppression; a lesser form of the “magic negro”. Once again I turn to Wikipedia:

The magical negro is a supporting stock character in American Cinema who is portrayed coming to the aid of a film's white protagonists. These characters, who often possess special insight or mystical powers, have been a long tradition in American fiction.

In this case there are no psychics or superheroes trying to help whitey. Spielberg’s black cast channels the Christian savior in their magnanimity. One might suspect an angry vengeful disposition given the conditions surrounding 19th century slavery, but Quentin Tarantino’s Django cannot be unchained in this universe.  Whereas Tarantino channels the rage of the 1970s blaxploitation heavies such as Mandingo - who want to kill whitey for for being evil; Spielberg has a never-ending parade of black people who are as well-mannered, well groomed and amiable as Sidney Poitier in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. It is, strangely, two sides of the same coin.   It is certainly progress when one considers Step’n’Fetchit, the most popular African American movie star of the early 20th century, made a career of exhibiting the most vile, feckless black stereotypes.  The beneficent mirror image, however, does deny the black characters the ability to be fully human. It is important to note that Spielberg should not be considered racist as his typecasting crosses color-lines. Noone is ‘real’ in this ‘historical reenactment’.  There are a slew of encounters between the beneficent Father Abraham and a number of earnest, coiffed, articulate African American characters in which the evils of slavery and the dignity of humanity are dutifully discussed.  It would be interesting to know if Kearns Goodwin took issue. It is a well-known historical fact that the 16th President’s views on blacks were evolving and would not be in accord with present day progressive attitudes.  The man we view in the cinema is NOT the man who at one time proposed sending blacks back to Africa. Then again Spielberg might see artistic license as more important than complete accuracy. This is the crux of the problem. The hallmark card visuals are merely cloying but the substance is troubling. Spielberg has a vision of what is necessary to produce an important serious portrait of this important serious historical figure. The result is neither historical, serious or important.

Lincoln’s family has always been a treasure trove of intrigue to the general public. George Washington might have been the first President; but he was his wife’s second husband. Martha had an immense fortune. These facts might come as a surprise to most as the Washingtons are sealed in the cool white gossip-free marble of hagiography. Lincoln’s saintliness has always had the common touch of marital upheaval.  The public knows  Mrs. Lincoln as “troubled”.  Spielberg has decided that the best way to approach this sensitive topic is to paint her as an overly emotional woman who failed to managed the loss of her favorite child. There is a scene in which she accuses her husband of wanting to lock her in an insane  asylum to conveniently shield him from her justifiable grief.   The fact that he fails to dispute this accusation leaves a uneasy ripple in the warm-fuzziness. Was honest Abe trying to lock up the troublesome mrs? The effect is about as jarring as an 18th century outhouse suddenly appearing in the Colonial Williamsburg theme-park.  No doubt Kearns Goodwin approved of this historical fact - but the truth seems to be swimming upstream. Mrs. Lincoln’s issues predated the death of her son William. In fact it predates the death of her other son Edward, who does not exist in this Lincoln family. “Molly” Lincoln suffered severe mental illness which bore the hallmarks of bi-polar depressive disorder.  She eventually ended up in a mental hospital being committed by her son Robert. Truth should not be a slave to fact in rendering art; but here truth seems completely lost. Lincoln’s chose to marry a VERY VERY difficult person who had extreme emotional issues.  That is NOT the couple portrayed in the film.  It should also be noted that the President himself was not the paradigm of mental health PRIOR to taking office.  He bouts with depression as a young man have been well documented. Once again that is not the character on screen. Spielberg could claim that their is a broader truth in what he shows. Molly was difficult but bore many ills with dignity. Lincoln himself was dour that was merely exacerbated by the carnage and horror which he was forced to orchestrate. Their deficits are illustrated with complete with thumbnail explanations as to their cause.  Unfortunately the director’s explanations and white lies muddle an understanding of the characters.  Spielberg, with the imprimatur of a credited historian, gets it completely wrong. It would be difficult to “know” Lincoln, but the idea that Mary Lincoln was merely difficult and oversensitive, and that Mr. Lincoln was a befuddled husband misses the mark.

She was really crazy. He was a real depressive. He certainly knew what he was getting into.  These obscured “facts” tell me more about Lincoln that two hours of clumsy Tony Kushner dialogue such as Mary saying something to the effect of: “you always held it against Robert (the eldest son) that he was born because it forced you to marry me” or how about this turkey: “People will remember you as great and me as crazy”.  I’m paraphrasing but you get the idea that broad, character-defining themes are handled with the subtly of a Norman Rockwell Thanksgiving painting.  Perhaps this analogy is a disservice to Rockwell as his job was to marshal the power saccharine cliches to sell papers. Spielberg is trumpeting this film as... well, serious stuff.  Once again artistry has license to cut and paste, but not to mislead.  Lincoln’s distance with Robert probably deserves its own separate feature to cover the vast ocean of family tension.  This film’s harping on his mother’s refusal to allow Robert to join the service is placed squarely on in the coffin of the beloved William. Mrs. Lincoln’s past instability and loss of another child puts this in a different light. It also shows the President willingness to support her, over his eldest son, to be somewhat darker than Spielberg’s telling.  In addition the nature of Lincoln’s overindulgence and closeness to Tad fails to mention Tad’s cleft pallet which rendered his speech incomprehensible. This is the dramatic equivalent of mounting a production of Dicken’s A Christmas Carol, and leaving out Tiny Tim’s crutch.  Seems an odd omission; but it was no doubt a casualty in the intense battle for truth back at production headquarters.

One can well imagine Mr. Spielberg, Mr. Kushner and Ms. Kearns Goodwin pouring over the mountains of material. One can feel the vast amount of pressure it must have taken to mold this sprawling narrative into Spielberg’s oeuvre.  In a sense it must have been an unintentional re-hashing of the vast political infighting that let to the passage of the 13th amendment. It is VITAL we include THIS. It is PARAMOUNT we don’t touch THAT. I’m sure, in the vast network of top departments and people, there were lobbyist of sorts who petitioned for inclusion of major events in Lincoln's life - the “Appottomax Court House” camp “won” - it is IN - the “Ford’s Theater” camp “lost” - there is no assassination scene... ditto for Gettsyburg.... although “the address” makes an appearance. One can only imagine the delight felt by some at Kushner’s cleverness: four soldiers at a busy army camp near the front, two black and two white, dutifully recite the speech to a well lit, seemingly unencumbered Lincoln, who seems to be posing for the monument on the mall. One suspects Kearns Goodwin missed that production meeting.... lets hope so.

In the end we have a clear, albeit simplified, narrative of how and why the 13th amendment passed along with uneven forays into family life and Washington personalities.  It will come as a surprise to many how the President’s insistence on this piece of legislation hinged on a very well-reasoned legal argument about how his banning of slavery could be reversed at a latter date. Lincoln believed the whole horrible business of war might re-ignite again.  There is the sub-plot of the Confederate peace offering which almost derailed the passage. In other words the idea was peace could be had WITHOUT completely settling the slavery question. Lincoln, through a series of cunning moves which involved lying to his allies, stuck to his guns and the measure was passed. We have the crafty maneuvers... but Spielberg fails to give us the man; or more correctly the person he reveals is molded by the future.  We have a representation of good father Abraham; rather than the genuine article.  There is a strange arrogance in this film which stems from the idea that hiring the best will render the truth. 

Interestingly the most successful sections of this film are the director’s brief re-creations of the battles and the aftermath on the field.  It is the same in Private Ryan. That film faltered after a stunning re-enactment of the Normandy invasion. Spielberg is more adapt at re-drawing actual places and events... rather than the individuals.  Lincoln becomes merely saintly, strong and clever.... Perhaps a repositioning of the battle scenes, specifically the opening sequence, might have given the audience more of a feeling for the steeliness of the President’s actions in potentially drawing out the war. It’s one thing to look back with hindsight and realize that he followed the right path. It’s another to see the carnage first hand and wonder what kind of stuff it must have taken to, as one recent President put it, “stay the course”. Victory has many fathers... but imagine if the war had dragged on for another half decade. Lincoln might have been viewed as a lawyerly perfectionist who toyed with hundreds of thousands of lives and his legacy might have steered closer to his predecessor and successor - the little remembered Buchanan and much maligned Johnson. Modern President’s have learned the hard way that self righteous belief in the ‘greater good’ has not always served to bolster their reputations; neither has skirting the law - something Spielberg’s  Lincoln freely confesses.  The greatness of Lincoln lies in the grey of doubt. Spielberg is more comfortable with bold strokes of black and white .  The director seems to banish the man who once said: “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right”.

Spielberg’s Lincoln echoes the words recently removed from the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial on the Washington mall:

“I was a drum major for justice peace and righteousness.”

The correct quote from Dr. King’s sermon reads:

“Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. Say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter.”

It is a distinction that probably be lost Mr. Spielberg as his Lincoln embodies a fierce knowing sense of justice.  Lincoln was a great fan of Shakespeare.  In fact Kushner lightly peppers the President’s dialogue with subtle references to the bard. Nothing too overt which was a welcome relief from a script that seems to want to prove that everyone had done their homework.  In short Spielberg sees the 16th President as a Henry V of good: A brash warrior/politician who cloaks his offense in a playful avuncular manner but keeps his eye on the prize of victory. What little I know makes me think more of Prince Hamlet: A man who inherits a disastrous political situation and the journey towards righteousness is bound by a constant questioning of the world around him in order to understand the meaning of victory.  There is little doubt that the Abraham Lincoln of 1861, who might have struck a bargain with the South, was not the same as the Abraham Lincoln of 1865. This does not make either bad or good. The bottom line is that the greatness of Lincoln lies in his ‘not knowing’; not his ‘knowing’. Mr. Spielberg, despite the legion of highly paid staff, missed the forest for the trees.  But no worries. Many in theater didn’t seem to notice. They clapped. They were very enthusiastic. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the other movies showing in the same time were: Skyfall, Life of Pi, Killing Them Softly, Playing for Keeps and Wreck It Ralph.  Certainly Mr. Spielberg’s historical foray should earn him great praise and many awards. But now that it’s over it’s time to get back to business. It has been revealed  Spielberg’s next two directorial projects are: Indiana Jones 5 and Robopocalypse.

Killing Them Softly (2012)

HITMAN, MISSMAN

It’s too easy to say “Killing Them Softly” is a bad movie. It fails to work but we do see an individual’s vision and effort.  This might sound trivial but all too often features are akin to chain restaurants where a committee-centric group-think is on display. It is a relief to be able to say “the artist didn’t see this or that” rather than “headquarters didn’t hire the right firm to run the focus groups”.  The essential mistake of this work is the writer/director’s attempt to make a bold statement about America.  It is not surprising that Andrew Dominik is a foreigner.  This is especially true when you consider Brad Pitt’s closing monologue in which he skewers Thomas Jefferson and the hypocrisy of American political myths. America has a proud tradition of jingoistic nationalism and we come across as too serious and severe in matters of religion and morality. Our moments of self-criticism, however, are more opaque. The “nattering nabobs of negativism” are either cloaked in tweed at the academy or t-shirts in the commune. They ain’t packing heat running around the street. The entrepreneurial gangster, if they reflect on politics at all, would never be harsh. That is the genius of this country; even our crooks are patriots. This is the tragic flaw that undermines Mr. Dominik’s whole endeavor.

For an genuine American portrait of low level robbers and hitmen turn to Springsteen’s “Born To Run” album: Meeting Across the River. This is a simple 215 word, lightly orchestrated tune about a down and out loser looking for the “big score”. This is the cornerstone plot-point in Mr. Dominik’s work.  Springsteen gives us a heart-wrenching portrait of people he knows:

And tonight's gonna be everything that I said
And when I walk through that door
I'm just gonna throw that money on the bed
She'll see this time I wasn't just talking
Then I'm gonna go out walking

Mr. Dominik gives us pages and pages of dialogue and MTV imagery of killings and blustery speeches delivered with gusto by top actors... and yet it’s Mr. Springsteen minimalist sketch that communicates everything that Mr. Dominik was trying to say.  It is important to note that other excellent foreign directors have stumbled in trying to make bold pronouncements about the schizophrenic contradictions of the land of opportunity.  Antonio’s “Zabriski Point”, although brilliant, shows little understand of the home of the brave. Americans don’t reflect much on our political state - we leave that to the French (de Tocqueville or Bernard-Henri Levy). Brad Pitt and James Gandolfini should have taken a cue from Coppola’s taciturn heavies who philosophize and moralize with simple curt pronouncements: we’re making you an offer you can’t refuse. There is a moment where Pitt tries to channel these potent warnings - but this quickly deflates into a clumsily masked DISCUSSION. We don’t go to the movies to see gangsters discuss - we want them glaring and strutting - think of many Scorsese moments - for example DeNiro sucking down a cigarette in “Goodfellas” as he stares at a partner who has made a scene. That partner is DEAD. You know it. In Dominik’s work you know it but.... you don’t really care as the “reveals” short-circuit themselves so the gad guys have no charge.

There is a prop in this film that is the perfect metaphor for “Killing Them Softly” - the sawed-off shotgun.  One of the low-end criminals produces a shotgun that is so “sawed” (i.e. shortened) that it looks ridiculous. In fact the co-bandit makes fun of it. The idea is that these down and out losers can’t even buy the right guns. They are uncomfortable, meandering and out of sorts.  There weapons don’t even make sense. This is Mr. Dominik’s major themes but unfortunately it is the film itself and not the characters who beg clarification.  After the initial hold up of the card game, the movie goes on a journey which reminded me of the incongruousness of that gun. There is the build up of the “mentor” Galiffino - who disappears off screen with a dialogue laden explanation.  There is the corporate Gangster who hires the elusive Brad Pitt - both these characters seem under or over-exposed - you haven’t known them enough but you’re afraid you know them too much; in the end don’t really care either way.  Every scene is peppered with Bush, Obama or Paulson reflecting on the ’08 financial crisis. Where is all this going? Let’s turn to an Italian director who go it somewhat right: Sergio Leon. His gangster epic “Once Upon a Time in America” gave answers. That film was bombastic and simplistic, however there are clearly drawn sagas which give an overarching coherence to the narrative. It also has a political undertones which genuinely speak to issues of community and fairness in the American system. “Killing Them Softly” opens up grandiose themes that are lost in endless sophomoric rants and journeys.

There are two defenses the director might put forth: 1. this is a black comedy and 2. the studio got in the way. In addressing the first argument: “Killing Them Softly” is not funny and therefore NOT a comedy (not even in the Russian social-satire sense of the word). This feature fails to elicit even a wry smile - Chekov’s “The Seagull” is slapstick compared to Mr. Dominik’s work.   In terms of the studio: I have not bothered to read about anything connected with the production of this film but I have little doubt there is AT LEAST another 90 minutes of material on the cutting room floor. Filmmakers are on a quest to find the missing footage in von Stroheim’s “Greed” or Capra’s “Lost Horizon”.  No one, save Mr. Dominik, would be able to endure MORE of “Killing Them Softly”. If the suits at headquarters cut large swaths of plotline from this feature the remaining footage shows their fears were justified. They are NOT GUILTY; the director will take full responsibility for the crime.  Were I to meet the Dominik I would not harp too much on this project. He’s young. He clearly has talent. It is impressive that he has managed to line up so much industry fire-power behind his project. I’d pat him on the back and mutter: “Kid you gonna do a job... bring the right gun”.  Then I’d walk away, turn around and say very firmly “you owe be $9 and 97 minutes.”