I think I'm in the minority that loves Miami vice, like it better than collateral. I like public enemies to but don't love it. Also enjoyed blackhat but definitely understand the issues people have with it. I do sorta agree that he's lost a step, as most directors do by his age.
Yeah it probably helped I had never seen the show( only started watching last week) I'm also a fan of Collin FarrellI only saw it once, in the theater when it was first released. No doubt part of my disappointment was that I wanted something that was true to the show. I wanted this:
Not this:
And I'm not talking about the original actors. I'm talking about the feel of the show. Despite it's serious subject matter, the show was always slick and stylish and fun. With the movie though, Mann decided to go his usual "dark and gritty" route.
I was also hoping the movie would be set in the 80s, like the show.
In any case, like I said I only saw it once. Maybe I should revisit it soon and give it another chance.
Does that movie even count?
Just judging by it's RT score, I took it for Mann's version of James Cameron's Piranha 2. That is, a film that he technically made but is best left forgotten.
We should find out if true with the heat prequel novel. It's gonna cover hanna taking down frankies crew in Chicago. So if it is true I guess it's gonna be a heat prequel and a thief sequel
So what's Thief about?
Frank wants the American Dream. He wants prosperity, respectability and a loving family. He also wants to be a self-made man, beholden to no-one but himself. But given that he's a criminal by proffesion, and the very skills that he uses to achieve said Dream are those of a criminal... there's no doubt that a conflict is forthcomming.
I think that the adoption-interview scene tells us a lot about Frank's character. He loses it pretty quickly with the desk-clerk when his time as a convict get's brought up. He knows it will lead to trouble. Listen to what he says. "I was state raised", and then he asks "You grew up in the suburbs?" with a tone of accusation and irked jelousy.
Frank want's desperately to be part of the mainstream. To wants a slice of the American pie. But his nature as a criminal dogs him. He blares those words at the desk-clerk because he wants to point out that he has had it rougher than they had. He didn't grow up in no cozy suburb. He wants to be the self-made man who rose from the grime by the abilities of his own hands.
Yet he's a Thief... so of course it's not goint to be easy.
I found it interesting that the film never shows Frank trying to live a legit life. He has no qualms about trying to achieve the American Dream through stealing (and then retiring, turning legit just as he's made his fortune). This is a staple of ex-con movies -- the protagonist trying to live a legit life but then sinking back into crime due to greed, necessity or pure existentialism. Straight Time or Carlito's Way being highly regarded examples of this trope.
Frank is so existentially a Thief... that he does not even consider the alternatives.
So Frank meets Leo.
What's interesting about Leo, is that his notions of partnership is very Feudal. He grants his clients services (police protection, child adoption, anything really) and in return he gets services from his clients (vault cracking in Frank's case). This is a life-style. You don't break it. It's a Feudal bond. Just by working in this enviorment -- he considers that you're in tactile agreement of this type of partnership.
This, of course, crashes with Frank's notions of wanting to be an independent, self-made man... who can turn legit precisely when he wants to. He wants a one-time Deal. Not a Feudal partnership. He constantly spurrs Leo's advances to make him a clientel, rejecting the gifts that cause ties which bind. That's until the adoption question is brought up.
I'm interested in this moment. Frank is gamey and street-wise. Up until this point -- he has steadily rejected all of Leo's gifts-with-strings. But when Leo offers a baby -- Frank instantly caves. There's no need to point out that attaning a baby is no small -- or ordinary -- task.
Why is this? Is there some cultural misunderstanding (Frank just seeing it as kindness while Leo sees it as a part of making Frank a clientele?). That explanation would make Frank out to be uncharacteristically blue-eyed. Probably he was just so overjoyed that he didn't consider the implications of Leo offering him a child. Emotions overtook instincts.
So the robbery goes off without a hitch. Frank wants to leave. Leo considers them to be partners now. He gave Frank a job. He gave Frank a baby. That baby is a mortgage, damit! Working as a criminal for the mob is not just a job. There's something Feudal about it.
Franks trouble spring from a contridictions. He wants to achieve the American Dream -- but he wants to do so through criminal means. The two realms are too different to smoothly transition between each other. Conflict is bound to occour. One does not simply "cease" being part of the criminal realm. The underworld does not work that way. It inhibits the independence of men who think themselves as self-made.
That brings to mind the ending. Frank drives away, alive. I agree with muntjac's assessement that "one does not simply kill a mob boss". But this is a film -- so I think we can look at it a bit more thematically than realistically. The thing is... Frank still does not have the money to retire for life. He's bound for future crack-saving to make his Dream-making fortune come through. The struggle is still ahead for sandy beaches and clear horizons.
Following my path-of-reasoning, consering the contridiction between the criminal and the American Dream -- as well as Frank's existential identification as a Theif -- I think he will be stuck in the underworld. Hunting that big score. Never truly making it. Always being stifled by the inherent contridiction of trying to go legit through criminal means.
Manhunter is my favorite Mann movie. I saw it at the cinema recently, it was glorious.
He even remaked it as a Miami Vice episode.
Funnily enough, a lot of people have pointed out that To Live and Die in LA is basically Friedkin doing a Micheal Mann pastiche. That said, filming the procedural itself as something fascinating is a trait that both Mann and Friedkin share and love.
Yeah I was thinking that as well. What precursors are there really to Thief? You can see the influences of Noir and the New Hollywood crowd but there is no doubt that Mann created a beast of his own with this film. Maybe the neat style of Point Blank served as a precursor? That's probably the most precient example I can think of.
Speaking of Michael Mann's style. I think the Noir influences are much more telling in this film than his later work. I'm thinking of how stuff like shadows play on your actors faces. That's something Mann would iron out more in his later pictures.
Also... I'm starting to think that Mann has a thing for oceanic horizons. It's rather John Ford-esque except you substitute the desert with water.
(all these pictures are making me feel like I'm MusterX or something).
To keep going with my line of reasoning from above.
I also think that involving her heavily in his criminal business would sully his quest for the American Dream. He wants to go legit, he wants respectability -- in relation to her, he wants an unconcerned, loving housewife.
If Jessie truly knew all the sordid details of his work -- would the spell then be broken and made unfixable? Could their co-existence really be idyllic if she was involved in his dirty trade? Sheltering her from the bloodshed means that they might still be able to retire somewhere and live in blissful ignorance of their criminal background. Could that illusion be upheld if she knew how close death lay?
He did pour his heart out to her. Pointed out that he's obviously no car-salesman. But even that rant was sketchy on the really daming details.
So what's Thief about?
Frank wants the American Dream. He wants prosperity, respectability and a loving family. He also wants to be a self-made man, beholden to no-one but himself. But given that he's a criminal by proffesion, and the very skills that he uses to achieve said Dream are those of a criminal... there's no doubt that a conflict is forthcomming.
I think that the adoption-interview scene tells us a lot about Frank's character. He loses it pretty quickly with the desk-clerk when his time as a convict get's brought up. He knows it will lead to trouble. Listen to what he says. "I was state raised", and then he asks "You grew up in the suburbs?" with a tone of accusation and irked jelousy.
Frank want's desperately to be part of the mainstream. To wants a slice of the American pie. But his nature as a criminal dogs him. He blares those words at the desk-clerk because he wants to point out that he has had it rougher than they had. He didn't grow up in no cozy suburb. He wants to be the self-made man who rose from the grime by the abilities of his own hands.
Yet he's a Thief... so of course it's not goint to be easy.
I found it interesting that the film never shows Frank trying to live a legit life. He has no qualms about trying to achieve the American Dream through stealing (and then retiring, turning legit just as he's made his fortune). This is a staple of ex-con movies -- the protagonist trying to live a legit life but then sinking back into crime due to greed, necessity or pure existentialism. Straight Time or Carlito's Way being highly regarded examples of this trope.
Frank is so existentially a Thief... that he does not even consider the alternatives.
So Frank meets Leo.
What's interesting about Leo, is that his notions of partnership is very Feudal. He grants his clients services (police protection, child adoption, anything really) and in return he gets services from his clients (vault cracking in Frank's case). This is a life-style. You don't break it. It's a Feudal bond. Just by working in this enviorment -- he considers that you're in tactile agreement of this type of partnership.
This, of course, crashes with Frank's notions of wanting to be an independent, self-made man... who can turn legit precisely when he wants to. He wants a one-time Deal. Not a Feudal partnership. He constantly spurrs Leo's advances to make him a clientel, rejecting the gifts that cause ties which bind. That's until the adoption question is brought up.
I'm interested in this moment. Frank is gamey and street-wise. Up until this point -- he has steadily rejected all of Leo's gifts-with-strings. But when Leo offers a baby -- Frank instantly caves. There's no need to point out that attaning a baby is no small -- or ordinary -- task.
Why is this? Is there some cultural misunderstanding (Frank just seeing it as kindness while Leo sees it as a part of making Frank a clientele?). That explanation would make Frank out to be uncharacteristically blue-eyed. Probably he was just so overjoyed that he didn't consider the implications of Leo offering him a child. Emotions overtook instincts.
So the robbery goes off without a hitch. Frank wants to leave. Leo considers them to be partners now. He gave Frank a job. He gave Frank a baby. That baby is a mortgage, damit! Working as a criminal for the mob is not just a job. There's something Feudal about it.
Franks trouble spring from a contridictions. He wants to achieve the American Dream -- but he wants to do so through criminal means. The two realms are too different to smoothly transition between each other. Conflict is bound to occour. One does not simply "cease" being part of the criminal realm. The underworld does not work that way. It inhibits the independence of men who think themselves as self-made.
That brings to mind the ending. Frank drives away, alive. I agree with muntjac's assessement that "one does not simply kill a mob boss". But this is a film -- so I think we can look at it a bit more thematically than realistically. The thing is... Frank still does not have the money to retire for life. He's bound for future crack-saving to make his Dream-making fortune come through. The struggle is still ahead for sandy beaches and clear horizons.
Following my path-of-reasoning, consering the contridiction between the criminal and the American Dream -- as well as Frank's existential identification as a Theif -- I think he will be stuck in the underworld. Hunting that big score. Never truly making it. Always being stifled by the inherent contridiction of trying to go legit through criminal means.
Manhunter is my favorite Mann movie. I saw it at the cinema recently, it was glorious.
He even remaked it as a Miami Vice episode.
Funnily enough, a lot of people have pointed out that To Live and Die in LA is basically Friedkin doing a Micheal Mann pastiche. That said, filming the procedural itself as something fascinating is a trait that both Mann and Friedkin share and love.
Yeah I was thinking that as well. What precursors are there really to Thief? You can see the influences of Noir and the New Hollywood crowd but there is no doubt that Mann created a beast of his own with this film. Maybe the neat style of Point Blank served as a precursor? That's probably the most precient example I can think of.
Speaking of Michael Mann's style. I think the Noir influences are much more telling in this film than his later work. I'm thinking of how stuff like shadows play on your actors faces. That's something Mann would iron out more in his later pictures.
Also... I'm starting to think that Mann has a thing for oceanic horizons. It's rather John Ford-esque except you substitute the desert with water.
(all these pictures are making me feel like I'm MusterX or something).
To keep going with my line of reasoning from above.
I also think that involving her heavily in his criminal business would sully his quest for the American Dream. He wants to go legit, he wants respectability -- in relation to her, he wants an unconcerned, loving housewife.
If Jessie truly knew all the sordid details of his work -- would the spell then be broken and made unfixable? Could their co-existence really be idyllic if she was involved in his dirty trade? Sheltering her from the bloodshed means that they might still be able to retire somewhere and live in blissful ignorance of their criminal background. Could that illusion be upheld if she knew how close death lay?
He did pour his heart out to her. Pointed out that he's obviously no car-salesman. But even that rant was sketchy on the really daming details.
