Sin City

How does one experience graphic novel violence? Would it be really an adaptation of the genre if it were to be replete with the deeper, subtle context of behavioral, psychological turmoil? Would the realism of the scene be improved if somehow comic book characters became alive? What would they think? How would they act? Graphic novels by their very nature probe into more risky, darker, seamier sides of the human psyche where the lines of good and evil are sometimes drawn in vivid black and white, good and evil.

Sometimes, the meaning of war is fought in terms of liberty and oppression, sometimes it appears meaningless. I've talked to a number of women who shake their heads at man's violence and the apparent senselessness of it. The feminine nurturing instinct seems to have been permanently mangled and the growth of humanity seems to have never really gotten out of the chemcial brew of anger and fighting.

Instead for me Sin City transforms the issue of principle, sacrifice into basic fundamental emotional ethics between indescriminate killing and killing and sacrificing one's self for innocence, goodness, a noble characteristics that even for me sometimes war movies seem to overlook.

There is one animated scene in Kill Bill Vol. 1 [spoiler] that perhaps depicts the more horrid experiences of criminal gangster violence and what it can do to an innocent child, a child who however turns bad and dies in the end (a somewhat ambiguous moral lesson).

Quote:

---

(Posted by tabuno:)
How would they act? Graphic novels by their very nature probe into more risky, darker, seamier sides of the human psyche where the lines of good and evil are sometimes drawn in vivid black and white, good and evil.

---

That is all very nice, and I very much appreciate your willingness to think through what's involved, but what you say here is still a rather vague generalization drawn up to justify Sin City. Graphic novels do lots of things. It seems to me that Miller and Rodriguez have transformed Miller's rather elegant drawings into murky but glistening grunge. What works in the more schematic and abstract world of a drawn book becomes a confused mess in this new celluloid transformation.

Mr Seitz makes a good point: The Longest Day is far better treatment of the subject than Saving Private Ryan, though the opening sequence of the latter is impressive, to say the least.

Needless to say, while battles in real wars may be "meaningless" in some larger philosophical sense, they are highly meaningful in historical and human terms, especially the Normandy landing. To compare the shennanigans in Sin City with the that phase of WWII is frivolous. I have not seen Band of Brothers. It sounded too rah-rah nationalistic for my taste, but it may be a good treatment of the war.

Anthony Lane in The New Yorker writes in his review of Sin City,

Quote:

---

(April 11, 2005:)
"We have, it is clear, reached the lively dead end of a process that was initiated by a fretful Martin Scorsese and inflamed, with less embarrassed glee, by Tarantino: the process of knowing everything about violence and nothing about suffering."

---

Because of realism and a sense of context, great war movies do convey that sense of suffering. The white wounds and splattered powdery blood in Sin City are sickening without seeming real. Like a video game, the film disgusts (while it may not move or excite) a sensitive person because it is without real affect yet what it represents reference acts that in real life are horrible. It is not necessary to have the simplification of a graphic novel to have a sense of clearcut good and evil. Quite the contrary: a true moral awareness is always informed by richness of context rather than simplification.

As illustration as I have done sometimes before I would like to mention the German 1960 movie Die Brücke, The Bridge, which depicts sequences of horrible violence and the suffering of German youths (one sees a few of them in The Downfall) -- drawn into service as the Nazi cause became desperate toward the end of WWII -- within a well-established human context--because each of the young soldiers has been intruduced with his family and his milieu early in the film. The reality of Die Brücke is complex -- the young people have various motives, some of them are idealistic and all of them are desperate; the aims for which they are fighting are dubious but they do not know that -- as in all war; the truth that emerges most strongly is that war is cruel and wrong. This is a very simple moral lesson, but it is presented within a real and disturbingly rich human context.

Sorry to go back so far, but I was gone for a while.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stevetseitz
>>Compare the complexity of Watchmen to the painting, and then you've got a more fair competition.<<

O.K. but even the most respectful comic lover must admit adults who like comics are a small, fringe group. Movies are experienced by a far larger audience. Cinema is an art form that can combine all other art forms: Music, Dance, visual composition, literature, etc.

The graphic novel by comparison is much smaller in scope. It's not as if you can turn one into another and not have to fill in some blanks.

---

Ok, now I can agree with you. However, I don't think that because cinema has a larger scope means that it's a more "sophisticated" medium. I may like movies better than comics (not to say that they're far behind in preference), but this fanboy's got to stick with his instincts. You kind of have to understand where I'm coming from: just a 16-year-old film buff with an occasional affinity for his "whiffs!!" and "bams!".

Chris Knipp: "The white wounds and splattered powdery blood in Sin City are sickening without seeming real."

I can't imagine that any graphic novel adapted to the big screen would be very successfully transformed if it became "real." World War II was real. Sin City is imaginary. The blood on the comic strip page or book is imaginary. The whole I idea is to allow the fantastic images to be unreal so that the graphic violence can become more emotionally tolerable. I would hate to think if such graphic violence were to be portrayed as realism - it would be ghastly. Sin City actually cut away many times, leaving the outcome to violence to the audience's imagination. Sin City focuses on characters not the massive onslaught of war. The audience is allowed to concentrate on individuals and their fight for good and die trying. Simple but pure.

I seem to be the only champion of this film here.
It's difficult to enunciate exactly how I feel about Sin City.
I have failed, not the filmmakers.


It's hard to exclaim "genius" without someone coming out of the woodwork slamming you for loving senseless, shocking violence
with no consideration for suffering, like Mr. Lane.

Well last time I checked this was entertainment, and people seem to have missed that.

Coming to the film as I do, with a life of comics reading and about 15 years of solid cinema knowledge/appreciation, I see the passion and craftsmanship in digital moviemaking and I am incredibly impressed.

I can't fathom how anyone- whether they like the film or not- cannot see/feel the kinetic triple-joint concentrated effort that was put into making it. No seems to acknowledge the accomplishment and the sheer thrill this movie provides.

I haven't even talked about the plots, which I'll do when I've seen the film a few more times (as Chris predicted).

I'm trying to make clear that for a fan of comic books and a fan of the movies, this film is welcomed with open extended arms, and I'm sure the filmmakers knew they were creating something special.

I do not advocate senseless pointless violence and this film is replete with it. I expected it- I saw Desperado & Kill Bill. I do not advocate turning women into soulless objects for man's whims. I expected it from this film.
It's called Sin City. What did you think you were gonna see?
I expected something more violent actually, and I would have still loved it.

It's a vacation to slimeville kids. It's escapist entertainment at it's finest.

It's not a Jane Austen novel nor is it Coronation Street.
It's Sin City, a masterpiece that doesn't need me to emphasize it.

It stands alone- for now and forever.

Quote:

---

I seem to be the only champion of this film here....

Coming to the film as I do, with a life of comics reading and about 15 years of solid cinema knowledge/appreciation, I see the passion and craftsmanship in digital moviemaking and I am incredibly impressed.

I can't fathom how anyone- whether they like the film or not- cannot see/feel the kinetic triple-joint concentrated effort that was put into making it. No seems to acknowledge the accomplishment and the sheer thrill this movie provides.

---

First of all, you're not the only champion, I'm sure, and tabuno has spoken eloquently in Sin City's favor on this thread.

Your remark about the "kinetic triple-joint concentrated effort" (I don't know exactly what that means, but I like the phrase; it's worthy of your own genius and eloquence) reminds me of a story about the English man of letters, Samuel Johnson. He was at his friend Mrs. Thrale's where a chamber concert involving a violin was in progress and making a wry face that clearly showed his displeasure. "But Dr. Johnson, Sir," Mrs. Thrale said, "do you not realize this piece is very difficult?"

"Difficult, Madam?" Johnson replied. "I wish it were impossible!"

One can appreciate that very many unsuccessful or unadmirable efforts have behind them tremendous effort; and the technical know-how applied to a film is no guarantee of its quality. You mention Tarantino's Kill Bill. Those two films too are derivative efforts, but they are derived from a lot of sources, rather than transferred from one to another medium like Sin City, and Tarantino has added a lot of his own original touches to them, most notably his inimitable dialogue. Can you quote me any quotable quotes from Sin City?

Quote:

---

Well last time I checked this was entertainment, and people seem to have missed that.

---

Yeah, but I didn't find it entertaining. That's the whole trouble. It was work for me to get through it. I'm sincerely sorry. I'm not just being a bad sport; I'm being true to my gut reaction, which I always try to be.

Quote:

---

It's not a Jane Austen novel nor is it Coronation Street.

---

I know, and I didn't expect it to be, and I loved the Kill Bills, and I don't think I have any particular knee-jerk negative reaction to violence. Violence, like a lot of other nasty things, works real well in the movies, and I appreciate that.

Whenever there's a transfer/adaptation it's very important to consider the result on its own, but it's extremely important from the cinephile point of view to consider the relatinoship between the original and the adaptation. Since you have "a livetime of comics reading" behind you, can you talk more about the Miller graphic novels Sin City is adapted from and the relationship between them and the movie? I always want to know: Is the adaptation as good as the original? Better? The same? But it must be different. How's it different? How have the filmmakers made creative choices in making the transfer? Where may they have fallen down, or lost some of the qualities of the original? Where have they added marvelloous (or alternatively questionable) new elements? These are things I want to know. I tried to make some comments on that in my review, based on recently seeing the movie and perusing the books, but I'm sure you are better qualified to do it.

This may be a case of repeat viewings as a must.

Tabuno has made some excellent points in favor of the film.
My *narrow-minded* attitude is total fan-boy-plants-his-flag.
I make no apologies.

Some lines that just roll off the tongue:

Marv (Mickey Rourke): There's no settling down.
This ain't no bar-room brawl.
It's gonna be blood for blood and by the gallons.
It's the old days. The bad days. The all-or-nothing days.
THEY'RE BACK.


one of the best scenes in the movie:

PRIEST: "...ask yourself if that corpse of a slut is worth dying for"
MARV: "Worth dying for". BLAM! {shoots priest}
"Worth killing for". BLAM!
"Worth going to hell for". BLAM!
" Amen".

Now that's just sheer manly movie machismo. Remember how romantic Clarence was in True Romance when he shot that fucker Drexel in the nutsac? Same stuff, gents.

It's just cold, cool calculated killin'. By a lughead played to the T by Mr. Rourke, whose career has been pocked with crap but proves that anyone can come back from the acting dead.
(with the right representation of course).

Your request for more persuasion (more making a case for the film) is duly noted, and I will come back with a final diatribe (maybe the longest thing I've typed at this Holy Cyber Station) that will hopefully bring everything into sharper focus for you AND me.


and yes, the film is 100% faithful to the novels (with a tiny few exceptions)

I enjoy all this detail from you and am glad more is to come. The fan-boy-stakes-his-flag declarations have to be expanded into real information and exposition if we're going to have a discussion about this and if you're going to make your case, and I'm sure there is a case. This is not a negligible movie. And you can quote me on that.

The old-days-are-back line was used by Lane:

Quote:

---

(The New Yorker, 'The Current Cinema,' "Feelings: Sin 'Sin City' and 'A HOle in My Heart', by Anthony Lane,' April 11, 2005)
"It's the old days," Marve muses. "They're back." I hate to say this, Marv, but for some of ut they never went away.

---

Lane's alluding to his argument that

Quote:

---

"the youthful, iron-skinned audience at whom the film is aimed will trumpet their belief [you're trumpenting, Johann, aren't you?] that 'Sin City' offers something new," whereas graphic novels themselves "are soaked to the bone in a style that was brought to refinement by film noir."

---

Etc. A point that I stole for my own review's comments.

The only thing I want to recommend you consider working up into something a tad more convincing (and detailed) in your next salvo is this:

Quote:

---

and yes, the film is 100% faithful to the novels (with a tiny few exceptions)

---

That doesn't cut it, old boy. We know it's faithful, but it's another medium, and that's what you have to consider. I made a brief comment on the angles, all the angular high-up 'shots' used in the comics (as also in many other comics' imagery back into the Forties), a look that is rarely seen in the movie; it relies too much on closeups, perhaps to show off all those CGI alterations and all the fancy makeup. Is a movie the same as a comic book or a graphic novel? Is Lane right to say comix stole from noir, without commenting on the differnces in the mediums?

Johann - Add me to your Sin City column (except for the confusing editing, merging of separate storylines, I'm with you).

If the the graphic novel borrowed from film noir in the first place then why re-make the movie as a film noir at all? Once again it's a matter of the lack of creativity in Hollywood.

Movies with far better writing "Miller's Crossing", "Out of the Past", "The Lion in Winter".


Watched non-director's cut of "Bladerunner" on the sci-fi channel the other day. Man, the voice-over REALLY wasn't necessary. The filmaker's added it only to kow-tow to the studio who thought the unsophisticated audiences would be lost.

Good voice over work is tricky and while some lines in "Sin City" were good, others fell flat. The trick in art is to know that sometimes less is more.

I really enjoy most voice-overs because it is impossible to really appreciate some of the mental musings that really fill in details that would be cumbersome or obviously fake if somehow transposed into the movie itself. Maybe I enjoy voice-overs because it reminds of the looking at the storybook pictures while my mother read to me each night. Somehow, voice-overs are not a detriment to me personally, I enjoy the multi-sensory experience of sight, sound, and narrative allowing my brain to synthesize both the experience on the screen and a linguistical discussion that really pierces the surface textures of the acting on the screen. I much preferred the original threatrical release of Bladerunner - a true American (ending) type movie goer, I guess. Sometimes it's nice to sit back and enjoy a movie without having to think, think, analyze all the time. Sometimes being spoon-fed is a vacation-like, entertainment dream - to sit back, experience, and enjoy without having to have one's mind in hyperdrive all the time. For me, sometimes this type of movie is the best and most memorable kind...because it allows one to experience the depth of the emotional, intellectual turmoil instead of trying to use one's imagination losing out on just the experience itself. That's why cartoons, stories, novels sometimes are fascinating, but at the same time frustrating too.

>>the youthful, iron-skinned audience<<


I found this comment to be very true. There is a lot of de-sensitization that is found in today's audiences. Even light comedies made today will contain at least one "shock" moment where the film will try and gross out the audience, raise some eyebrows and with any luck get some free publicity.

The hair gel in "Something about Mary" comes to mind. It doesn't always work. Look at the so-awful-it's-funny "The Sweetest Thing". They were obviously going for gross out moments and shock laughter but it failed miserably. Any humor in that film is unintended.

The same goes for violent films. Directors and writers are under a constant pressure to "take it to the next step". To an audience that has seen "Pulp Fiction", a movie like "Goodfellas" may not shock or titilate as intended.

The best films find a balance between new ground and tradition. It's not unlike jazz. You can't truly improvise and create until you can play the standard flawlessly straight. You must have a grasp of the fundamentals.

I agree that Anthony Lane is on the mark, but I think we're all iron-skinned, and that isn't entirely a bad thing because we're less prudish. But as I said in my review of Sin City, torture and horrible violence are present realities to me and to us all now (in the wake of the Iraq war and occupation and Abu Ghuraib) and it's hard to be indifferent to the indifferent doling out of violence when it's done with a deadening rhythm.

I'm 'afraid' (irony) that I missed the out-of-tune vulgarities of The Sweetest Thing (I didn't see it); an IMDb viewer described it as "a train wreck of a movie." I don't see a lot of the kind of movies you're alluding to. I did just see Guess Who, and I think it steered clear of grossness, although it is incredibly outspoken compared to the original Guess Who's Coming....etc. I thought the brief comments about white men's penises were very welcome, though I'm still wondering if she was supposed to be lying to impress her sister, or telling the truth as she saw it.

I have yet to see "Guess Who". I have a friend who recommended it but I'm luke-warm towards Ashton Kutcher. I'm still trying to figure out who's nephew or cousin he is to explain his sudden hollywood ubiquitousness.

Is it worth seeing?

The only reason I saw "The Sweetest Thing" was because my friend and his wife rented it and were so apalled/surprised that they made me watch it with them.

I did see a "guilty pleasure" movie over the weekend: "Sahara"

Now, here is a movie that wants to have fun, the cast
wants to have fun and the audience ends up having fun. Steve Zahn is hilarious. Matthew McConaughey handles the demands of his role quite well. Penelope Cruz brings her ever-present charm and beauty to a role which is notable for being one of the few action-adventure roles
written for a female in recent memory that is not obnoxious.

William H. Macy is great and the production values are high.

It's kind of a James Bond meets Indiana Jones film (I swear they used the same canyon from "Raiders of the Lost Ark") The villains are one dimensional, but who cares?

Guess Who is not a must-see, that's for sure. I went to it to see Ashton and because it fit the timing of a friend who wanted to see a movie with me.

I love Ashton. I like cute guys, what can I say? I believe he's better than people say, but I'm prejudiced. I think, and it's been written also, that he's a much shrewder operator than the public realizes; he has his finger in many pies amd as his character says in Cheaper by the Dozen, he knows that his acting talent is not what gets him work.

I'll keep Sahara in mind as a possible fun movie, because another friend mentioned wanting to see it, though I don't like Macy.

Chris Knipp: "But as I said in my review of Sin City, torture and horrible violence are present realities to me and to us all now (in the wake of the Iraq war and occupation and Abu Ghuraib) and it's hard to be indifferent to the indifferent doling out of violence when it's done with a deadening rhythm."

Tab Uno: One could argue that the tragic deaths of thousands of American citizens and Iraqis have at its core a rather dubious purpose and that the billions of dollars of real taxpayer money and real maiming of U.S. soldiers has taken on a mind-numbing, deadening rhythm of its own. The whole sad global event is too large to comprehend, the real motives of the war trenched in mystery and conspiracy. Unlike War World II, doubts linger to the extent that the U.S. public does not know what to think. Are our war dead heros or pawns in a much larger sorry trajedy? Unlike the Sin City violence that is obviously fake, over the top, there is a consistent theme of decency and purpose, the singular sacrifice of one's own life for another human being or the rights of another person (it's not so clear in reality in Iraq). What's more deadening? What's more obvious in terms of moral principles and violence demonstrated in a lavish, stylish theatrical movie or the more murky reality of real death and lost limbs? By now the American public appears to become more deadened to the constant numbers of actual GIs dead - now down from 100 a month to 50 to 30 a month while on the screen violence and imaginary death seem to raise at least a louder more persistent debate than even the war itself at times.

"Sahara" is one of the best action-adventure movies out so far this year. It avoids over the top action, thrills and returns to a more serious and simple formula for its compelling storyline and cinematography while provided enough humor to keep the movie balanced.

>>One could argue that the tragic deaths of thousands of American citizens and Iraqis have at its core a rather dubious purpose<<

What there is no doubt about is that free and democratic societies have the highest standards of living, highest level of human rights, fewest number of democides and the least instances of military aggression towards their neighbors.

Regardless of our personal feelings about the conflict in Iraq, the history of the 2oth century shows that a democratic society is always preferable to a totalitarian regime.

While war is violent and innocent lives are lost, war is immeasurably better and less costly in terms of lives than a brutal, totalitarian regime like Saddam Hussein's.

In the 20th century all wars combined killed an estimated 40 million people. Absolutism killed a minimum of 170 million.

Absolutism is not only many times deadlier than war, but itself is the major factor causing war and other forms of violent conflict. It is a major cause of militarism. Indeed, absolutism, not war, is mankind's deadliest scourge of all.

It wasn't my intention to start a discussion of modern history or US foreign policy. I was referring only to the difference between how a young teenage boy and an adult perceives violence; but even that was too general, because it's all a question of style and context. I found Sin City's violence leaden and difficult to sit through. That was my point. I can conceive that if I were 13 I might not. As tabuno quoted me, I said that "torture and horrible violence are present realities to me and to us all now". I only cited the Iraq war and Abu Ghuraib to show how they're present realities at this time. When I was 11 or 13 and enjoyed torture sequences or seeing somebody's head blown off in a movie, those sorts of events hadn't become realities to me yet. Though it's difficult to explain why other than to refer to the comic book context, Sin City seems for the most part best designed for the "youthful, iron-skinned" audience Anthony Lane refers to in the remarks I quoted earlier. But why wouldn't I say that about the two Kill Bills or Oldboy? All I can say is that those are clearly designed to appeal primarily to a more adult audience.

The present realities of war, torture and mayhem may take center stage at this time (due to media coverage, etc.) but violence has always been and, alas, appears as if it will always be with mankind.

When homo erectus first walked erect and started carrying stone tools circa 1,500,000 B.C. our ancestors were scarcely sentient it was about one million more years before we know they started controlling fire, building huts, driving herds of wild animals, using language, etc.

Even back then violence was a constant companion, the fossil record shows indications that our closest "near human" competitors Homo habilis, Australopithecus robustus, and Australopithecus boisei were wiped out.

Our age of relative peace and enlightenment is certainly the exception in human history and may just be a hiccup before another era of slaughter and carnage begins.

I think our art is a reflection of our culture and an empty, violent film like "Sin City" should be a cautionary indicator. I'm a fan of many violent action films and have enjoyed everything from "Spartacus" to "Unforgiven" to "Enter the Dragon". I simply found the quality of presentation lacking in "Sin City".

stevetseitz: "Sin City seems for the most part best designed for the "youthful, iron-skinned" audience Anthony Lane refers to in the remarks I quoted earlier. But why wouldn't I say that about the two Kill Bills or Oldboy? All I can say is that those are clearly designed to appeal primarily to a more adult audience."

tabuno: What you say here makes a lot of sense. If true, what becomes an important concern is whether the "youthful, iron-skinned" will be hardened and deadened to violence or will the honorable intentions of the heros in this movie break into the emotional hearts and sensitivities of such iron-skin?

Such a targeted audience would probably not be as apt to appreciate the subltety of "Kill Bill" which in of itself had some questionable ethics and ultimate motives involved (a mother killed in proximity to her daughter, a sympathetic assassin who had to witness the terrible murder of her father only to be killed herself).

You ascribed the quote to the wrong person, tab. It's Chris Knipp's.

Chris Knipp you party pooper. I was reading this post from the start and was just enjoying the slugfest (?) when you had to come along and raise the bar. I did like your review. There can be not doubt of your intellectual prowess. But I'm on record as opposed to this kind of violence for entertainment, and we went round and round on Tarantino. No one liked the science fiction tale, "Sky Captain," told in a similar vein in front of blue screen. It, too, was highly stylized. The film noir aspect of this movie sounds intriguing, but I'll stick with less graphic interpretations, where the bad guy doubles over and drops to the ground. That's my idea of violence. I wonder sometimes how people can "enjoy" the vicarious experience of seeing someone beheaded. Now there's a visceral response, but then, its been done before.

>>No one liked the science fiction tale, "Sky Captain," told in a similar vein in front of blue screen. It, too, was highly stylized.<<

Highly stylized yes. Like you say, that doesn't make it neccesarily GOOD. "Streets of Fire" was highly stylized, so was the music video for "Take on Me" by Aha. If the visuals dominate the plot they must constantly innovate and keep us interested in what we are watching.

>>The film noir aspect of this movie sounds intriguing, but I'll stick with less graphic interpretations, where the bad guy doubles over and drops to the ground. That's my idea of violence. I wonder sometimes how people can "enjoy" the vicarious experience of seeing someone beheaded. Now there's a visceral response, but then, its been done before.<<

Violence in film has been with us since the earliest movies. The difference is that there is violence done to advance the plot and there is violence for violence sake. There is also violence that is truly shocking because it comes at us as a surprise and there is violence that simply deadens us to the reality of the characters on the screen.

The first shot that indicates Sin City the film is on par with Sin City the comics is when Josh Hartnett kisses the woman he assassinates.

Sin City the comics are gorgeous exercises in black and white contrast. Throughout the film is the permeation of that contrast, and this should be remembered when comparing the film to the comics. I've read 4 Sin City graphic novels and own one: The Big Fat Kill. It was originally a 5-issue series in 1994. This one will be my main reference.

Sin City is Basin City, a Metropolis that seems like a cross between New York, L.A. and Transylvania. The roads seem like Tin Pan Alley, Mullholland Drive or the Borgo Pass, depending on what part of the story we're currently seeing. In "The Big Fat Kill" a good portion takes place in Old Town, whore heaven as it were, where "the ladies are the law". They've struck a deal with the cops, a truce, and they are left alone to police their area.

Marv (the honest lughead) is in all three parts and is the main star of The Hard Goodbye. It's all about his revenge for Goldie, his dame, and he doesn't know she's a whore. She's murdered, right next to him. He seeks help from his parole officer but to no avail. From the time Goldie is taken Marv goes downhill.
All the way to "Old Sparky".

What I love about this first segment of the film is Marv. He's the anchor of the piece, and just about every line he utters is truth (to him). Whether he's waxing about no remorse over killing hitmen or his hatred for modern cars that all look like electric shavers, I LOVE THIS CHARACTER. And I love Mickey Rourke's portrayal of this character. Rourke is an ex-boxer and has been playing badasses for a while- perfect casting choice. (Rourke is also a dog lover, so when he doesn't kill the wolf at the farm it's kinda true-to-life).

I also like how Rodriguez uses colors- the red dress of the opening shots, the beautiful tinting of the cars. And about the cars: another reason I love this movie is there is not a Ford Taurus or Saturn anywhere in sight. Just vintage rides like the T-Bird and the Chrysler and sweet machines like the Porsche, Jag and Ferrari. Manly movie.
I say again: MANLY MOVIE.

The characters in this film are from the underbelly. There is only brief mention of "real world" types such as the lawyer who gets his arm broken by Marv, the female Nazi judge banging her gavel, and policemen are very peripheral.
(Even if they get a fair amount of screen time).

I think because there is very little "real world" in the film people didn't like it. They had next to nothing to relate to. They couldn't "connect" with the characters. People go to movies hoping that they can live vicariously in some way through the characters. Not happening at Sin City. Aww. Too bad.

I love it so much. It's a film you have to totally submit to.

When you couple the Unreal-ness with the non-plausible stuff such as a swastika star chopping a hand clean off or Jackie-Boy's coming back to life in the cab of Dwight's dumping car, people just hate it. Comic book fans love it. Clive Barker fans love it. Frank Miller fans love it. Regular folks can't stand it.

In each of the three stories someone has a vendetta they've gotta settle.
It's revenge all the way.
Someone did someone wrong and now someone's gonna pay.

In 1: Marv's gotta get payback for Goldie.
In 2: Dwight's gotta get payback for the women of Old Town and Shellie.
In 3: Hartigan's gotta get payback for Nancy.

And they're all running simultaneously if you wanna get technical.

Another reason people hate this movie: no sunlight.
It's black. It's night. ALL THE TIME.
The ultimate nocturnal movie if you ask me. I was expecting to see Eric Draven walk by in an alley or Batman up on a steeple somewhere. It's dark and sinister and evil and angry and seedy and creepy and wierd and cool all at the same time.
Viewers feel even more cheated of realistic happenings because the film is so deeply ominous. Aww. Too bad.

The comics medium is perfect for the nighttime.
Because the viewers are denied daylight to balance out whatever it is they think they're missing, (and because the wacko people who populate this city are so alien to them) people are uncomfortable watching this film.
Like Chris, they were not entertained.

Gail could have been Madame Desgranges in the 120 Days of Sodom by Sade:

Her soul remained the repository of every vice and the most heinous crimes. Arson, patricide, incest, sodomy, tribadism, murder, empoisoning, rape, theft, abortion, and sacriledge. One could swear with absolute veracity that there was not one single crime in the world that this jade had not committed herself or arranged to have committed.

The tiny differences in books to film?

-Nancy is topless in the books. It would have killed some box-office if the film was rated NC-17

-Lines were dropped or compressed. (Such is translation)

-Page 30 of The Big Fat Kill was turned into a stunning sequence: Dwight's drop from the ledge.

-Manute does not say "I'm an artist" in the book- Davis does.

-Stuka is shot through the chest and the NECK in the book with an arrow. Not his forehead.

-The guy who says to Shellie "My temper you don't have to worry about" is black in the book.

And that's about it. (At least in BFK). The film is absolutely faithful to the books. And then some. Frank must be happy. He MUST.

He was the Priest in the film by the way. Lovely scene. Perfect.

Miho's entrance and subsequent scenes were mute-perfect as well. The storyboard on page 51 is EXACTLY as it is in the film.
The scenes of her rescuing Dwight from the tarpits with the winch are also immaculately accurate. As I said, this film is 100% accurate in it's translation from page to screen. I could list many other examples, but why don't you get off your ass and read the Sin City tomes yourself?

The zooms, the rotating overhead shots, the choices of camera angles- all note-perfect.
The voice-overs are all excellent.
Bruce Willis has always had a great voice.
Mickey Rourke is the bomb at voice work. When he speaks you believe it. Same with Rutger Hauer.
Clive Owen has a good voice.
Michael-Clarke Duncan has an awesome, booming baritone.
and the best voice in the film is Benicio's. When he says "You wanna see what I got?" it's bone chilling.

I must also mention the asses.
We get some choice shots of the sinful derrieres of some hot women in this movie. At ass-level! Being a buttman myself, these brief tantalizing stilleto-fishnet-uzi shots are almost worth the price alone.
And in the novels the bums are rendered with just as much if not more curvaceous style.

Just thought I'd add that.

Speaking of Uzi's, what a kick-ass movie for gunplay!
The way Rosario holds her Uzi, shit!
Lock and load, mama!
And when Clive Owen unloads two Uzi's, one in each hand, he makes a strong case for taking over for Tom Jane as The Punisher. Fuckin awesome. I love Uzi's. Never got to fire one when I was a soldier. Anybody know where you can fire off some 30-round clips on this continent? Let me know.

I'll end with this opening screed from chapter 5 of The Big Fat Kill.
Maybe it'll make clear that this film is about who to fight, why to fight them, and WHERE to stage the rumble.



480 B.C.
King Leonidas of Sparta and his personal guard of 300 men ready themselves for battle. The fate of humanity is at stake.

Out of Persia thunders the mightiest military force ever assembled. The earth shudders with the impact of it's march. It drinks the rivers. Dry. It devours livestock like some angry, hungry God.

It pauses, poised to vanquish tiny Greece, to crush her impertinent invention of democracy and extinguish the only light of reason in the world.

The Spartans are outnumbered a hundred-thousand to one-- but Leonidas has chosen his battle site with care: the mountain pass called HOT GATES. Funnelled into this narrow corridor, the Persians find their numbers useless. The Spartans hold their ground just long enough for slumbering Greece to wake and rally her sons for war.

The hope of civilization is kept alive by Spartan Courage-- and a careful choice of where to fight.

A number of critics have raved over Kill Bill and its approach to violence, especially the Japanese restaurant scene where many get killed by Umi Thurman. A number of critics have raved over Bladerunner and its use of visual designs, almost shot in total darkness. Thus with Sin City, it too has violence that really isn't real, very stylized and not so much entertaining us with violence but with a sordid ritualized dance of death that is in many cases not graphically shown. The darkness in Sin City lends itself to the whole environment of Sin City just like Bladerunner and its depiction between the rich and the poor, where Sin City, however, was all just one big same City of darkness.

The darkness in Bladerunner was at least partially explained by climatic and pollution levels, in the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" I believe there was a catastrophe of some sort that killed a huge percentage of the natural animal population, thus the creation of replicant animals (and humans). It's been a LONG time since I read the book.

Also, when Deckard flies his vehicle to the police station we are given a glimpse of a gorgeous rays of sunlight. So, it's not some supernatural darkness that pervades the city at all hours.

In the film "Dark City", the others keep the inhabitants of their city is a stupor by keeping it an eternal night and using the natural human response to darkness, that is to curl up somewhere and sleep. Again we have a plausible explanation.

In "Sin City" we have a faux film-noir world which doesn't bother explaining anything (not neccessarily a bad thing) but the characters operate in such a cartoonish and over-the-top fashion that any descriptions that deal with reality such as "manly" do not accurately apply. It's sort of like saying Roger Rabbit had a "never say die" attitude.

If there is no risk, there is no suspense. If there is no cost to violence on the screen it has no emotional impact.

I bet you didn't fire your Uzi with one hand either. That kind of thing may play in a John Woo movie and it made sense in the original "Terminator" film because the android was so strong, but firing an automatic weapon with one hand is quite difficult not to mention you shots are all over the place.

stevetseitz: "The darkness in Bladerunner was at least partially explained by climatic and pollution levels, in the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" I believe there was a catastrophe of some sort that killed a huge percentage of the natural animal population, thus the creation of replicant animals (and humans). It's been a LONG time since I read the book."

tabuno: The actual and perhaps primary reason that Bladerunner appeared to be so dark may have been for a much more pragmatic but not very story/plot-oriented reason as steveseitz suggests

- based on an interview with Ridley Scott, director of Bladerunner he stated -

<<Well, the fact that we were shooting at night was certainly a helpful factor (managing to make the movie not look like a back lot). But Warner's back lot isn't that big. So if we hadn't filmed 'Blade Runner' at night, you would have been able to see beyond the margins of our sets to all those small hills which surround the Warner Brothers' studio. That's also the reason it's raining all the time in 'Blade Runner,' you know. To disguise the fact that we were shooting on a back lot...It does hlep lend a realistic quality to the story, yes. But really, a lot of the reason we finally settled on all that rain ad night shooting was to hide the sets. I was really paranoid that audiences would otice we were shooting on a back lot.">> Paul M. Sammon, ''Future Noir The Making of Blade Runner" New York: Harper Prism, 1996, pp. 378-9.

If any one saw any of the making of most the stunts seen in the movies nowadays, one would begin to realize how impossible most of them would be in real life. Thus, the audience all over the world have been seduced by the feasibility of the impossible. Even something as seemingly simple as Lara Croft's horseback ride and shooting at targets is an illusion.

At least with a Sin City, graphic novel, the audience isn't even supposed to believe in the realism of the actual behavior and action of the movie in real life. Instead, we are supposed to transport our reality into their world and feel their existance. Anyone who saw "The Purple Rose of Cairo" or "Last Action Hero" would understand the nature of movie characters and their world and the preposterious notion that we the audience must have some moral superiority over reality, instead having to inhabit their world. Who says we have any more validity in requiring movies to adhere to our real world physics and morality. Sometimes, it seems that it's the world of cinema that may have a higher moral claim to what ought to be (though when it comes to Sin City one could argue that it really isn't that pleasant a place, no matter how ethically principled the main heros are in the movie).

When one consider the merits of a movie, one indicator is its ability to promote discussion and its proclivity to focus attention on itself on whatever basis. A quick review of this website brings up the following observation:

The most number of replies for a single film:

190 - Fahrenheit 911
112 - Passion of Christ
104 - The Pianist
79 - Sin City
60 - Mean Girls
58 - Sideways
54 - Punch Drunk Love
54 - Lost in Translation
43 - The Hours
42 - Chicago
41 - One Hour Photo
39 - About Schmidt
37 - Bowling for Columbine
37 - Adaptations
36 - Swimming Pool
35 - Hero
34 - 28 Days Later
33 - Signs
32 - Kill Bill: Vol. 1
32 - Before Sunset
31 - Million Dollar Baby
30 - The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
29 - Kill Bill: Vol. 2
29 - The Matrix Reloaded
29 - The Matrix
28 - The War of the Worlds (Spielberg)
28 - The House of Flying Daggers
27 - The Brown Bunny
26 - Solaris
25 - Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
24 - Battle of Algiers
24 - Mulholland Drive
23 - City of God
22 - Frida
22 - Femme Fatale
22 - Alexander

Your specific detail about the books and your sincere appreciation of all sorts of details gives an in-depth picture of what admiration for Sin City looks like, but as you might have suspected I still can't exactly get it; I can't see what you like so much other than the fact that you loved Miller's graphic novels and you love seeing them turned into a motion picture. But the thing is, I think one of the big drawbacks of your comments here is that you don't look at the basic aspects of the transfer which somebody has mentioned, namely that in the book you get a few freeze-frames and you imagine everything in between, and the "look" of the book pages and the "look" of this movie are of necessity totally different, despite the slavish (but as you show not exact) copying of book to film.

Quote:

---

(Posted by Johann.)
The tiny differences in books to film?

---

But are they so "tiny" though? If you love the books so much and the movie so much, shouldn't you do the two different media the honor of doing justice to the differences between them? All your examples are welcome for the real fan (which I'm obviously not--a real fan would not only love Sin City but would have thoroughly devoured and loved the Miller graphic novels too) but they overlook the main thing that bothered me or that I thought might explain why I didn't like the movie. It was not because of the things you say "regular folks can't stand" such as the fact that it's always nighttime (I've alluded to the fact that I really like the Crow movies), that "there's very little 'real world' in the film" and all the "non-plausible stuff" (I don't think those are a problem for me; I can enjoy fantasy and the surreal). It was because it was NOT so unreal after all, transferred to semi-real looking actors and semi-real looking film footage of objects moving in semi-real space, as opposed to the stylized graphic imagery of a comic book.

Quote:

---

(Johann again.)
Manly movie.
I say again: MANLY MOVIE.

---

Yes. Okay. Fine. . . .And that's because of the cars, then, "vintage rides" like a T-Bird Chrysler and s"weet machines" like the Porsche, Jag and Ferrari"?

Listen, Johann, I like cars. I've always liked them and I always will. I admit I drive a Honda now but I've had two MG's and I'd love to own a vintage Alfa and I love to look at vintage American cars too. I went out on the freeway Sunday afternoon and I saw a beautiful orange Lotus speeding along the highway and I bet I was as turned on as anybody on the road that day. But do cool cars really make a movie "manly"? How? What's manly to you? Are you sure a lingering fascination with cool cars isn't the boy in us rather than the man?

You're telling but not showing throughout your appreciation, preaching entirely for the choir. But we're having a pretty good ongoing debate over the movie in this thread and you do have the power, the conviction and the knowledge, to sway detractors or the unconverted into giving Sin City a second look.

I'm with you on one thing. I am not ever going to say "I didn't mind" Sin City. I'm either going to go on hating it, or I'm going to learn to love it. I don't think there's really a middle ground here nor do I think there should be. My reaction was too strong for me to agree with the way Oscar Jubis expressed his view of Sin City on his film journal thread:

Quote:

---

(Originally posted by Oscar Jubis.)
I watched Sin City at the same theatre, this year's most written-about movie at filmwurld. I don't see the reason for so much love/hate. An adaptation from a graphic novel, a compendium of borrowings from the film noir and action genres, tough 'n sexy guys and gals no one cares about except to look at, structure a bit clever here and there, excellent production values (especially the lighting I thought), human element buried beneath nihilism, objectification, and cynicism. I don't mind all that much because the fact that it's so stylized and other-worldly creates a buffer.

---

"Don't mind that much"? What's that all about -- "sincere" lack of reaction (but that's an oxymoron, isn't it? -- or merely a desire not to enter the fray? I can see a lot of reason for love/hate, and there wasn't enough of a buffer for me. To me, frankly there's always been something crude and direct about Rodriguez -- I've never really liked his filmmaking, though I could see its graphic directness -- and he's crude and direct here, despite the clever technological tricks and the metiulous restaging -- far too much so for there to be any kind of "buffer" for anybody who's really watching, in my humble opinion.

You don't hold anything back and that's what I like about you, and it's particuarly revealing when you end up by saying -- I don't know how seriously or how tongue-in-cheek -- that you'd like to know someplace where you can have the satisfying experience of firing an Uzi.

Steve Seitz has kept the anti- argument going in more detail than I have here, I'm only commenting specifically on your long post.

Regarding Ridley Scott being worried about the impression that Bladerunner was shot on Warner Brothers back lot.

Visually, the film is almost as impressive today as it was in 1982. Only a few matte paintings are unconvincing. I can't really believe Scott when he says he was worried about this. I suspect it's more a case of a director (with an ego) who remembers having to battle studio restraints. It's a way that he can exaggerate his obstacles and seemingly increase his glory. It's kind of like Spielberg complaining that the "shark" didn't work on "Jaws". All I can say is thank God it didn't work. The limitation forced Spielberg to craft a masterpiece out of a monster movie with skillful suspense and the concept of "less is more".


The novel is set in a post apocalyptic earth after "World War Terminus" and just perusing the first few pages of text we find mention of "fallout", "gray and beclouded" and "dust". The conditions were bad enough on earth that people were encouraged to emigrate to off-world colonies.

The superb cinematography was by Jordan Cronenweth who also shot the superb "State of Grace" and "U2:Rattle and Hum".

I don't know much about Blade Runner although I've watched it a number of times in various formats and like it a lot. It may not be a great film but it's classic and it's got fantastic sequences in it, in fact what isn't memorable in it? Everything. I love it. I thought that it was made rather on a shoestring, compared to a lot of stuff, and that might explain Scott's concern that it might not make a good impression. The details, the Geiger designed objects and façades, etc., are of course marvellous, but my understanding is that they were thrown together quickly. I don't think it's necessarily untrue what Scott says about the back lot and the hills, etc. Often shooting on a shoestring, or under relative constraints, is positive in accomplishing the effects of what Steve calls in a phrase I always like, Less Is More.

I'll concur Chris, I would also like to point out that a couple of my favorite movies were made in less than ideal circumstances. "Casablanca" was just one of many studio pictures being made in almost as "assembly line" fashion but the writers, actors and directors all elevated their efforts to make a classic.

"Touch of Evil" is a great movie but rumor has it Orson Welles didn't even want to make it. I'd like to note that this movie made use of overlapping dialogue over a decade before Altman's "M.A.S.H."

I have never had a driver's license. I'm not a "car guy".
So what do I mean by "manly"? Can anybody see what I'm illustrating here?

Thanks for confirming my suspicions Chris. I am preaching to the choir. No, I'm preaching to the dissenters who missed the point of this film. I've already said: "How can I articulate".

Chris, the differences are tiny. Do you feel you missed out on something? Maybe you did: Dwight is naked in the novel when Shellie is talking to J.B. thru the door.

I'll even give 2 examples of when Rodriguez gaffed:

-When Miho "makes a Pez dispenser" out of Jackie-Boy her face is sprayed with blood. Within seconds, her face is clean- not a drop of sang anywhere.
-When Miho rescues Dwight they are both drenched in tar. But mere moments later Miho is clean again. WTF?

Also Chris, what pray tell do I have to do to illustrate that the film and books are one?

The differences are so minor as to be completely moot.
What do you want??
The colors are the most glaring difference.

Becky's blue eyes & the Cardinal's green, Dwight's sneakers,
the cab of Dwight's dump car is bathed in a kaliedescope of alternating christmas lights, Miho's unique color-coding and the white neon luminescense of Marv's facial bandaids, The Yellow Bastard, etc. etc.
If the movie doesn't work for you then just say it.

I highly admire Rodriguez now. He quit the Director's Guild because they wouldn't allow him to give Frank Miller a co-directing credit.

Amen Robby. Fuck those clowns who have no passion.

Johann,

Quote:

---

If the movie doesn't work for you then just say it.

---

I have said it. We're discussing why.

Quote:

---

Chris, the differences are tiny. Do you feel you missed out on something? Maybe you did: Dwight is naked in the novel when Shellie is talking to J.B. thru the door.

---

We're talking about two different things here as I tried to clarify earlier. In a sense "the differences are tiny"as you say and in another sense the overall difference in feeling, look etc. is huge. I don't disagree with you about how Rodriguez closely follows Miller's stories and uses his drawings as the point of departure for his scenes. My review begins by noting that Rodriguez gives Miller joint billing for direction of Sin City. (Everybody knows he quit the Director's Guild over that so you didn't have to mention it; but it shows his slavish devotion to Miller, of course.) I said "Little is discernibly added to the stories by Rodriguez; at times he follows dialogue and image as if the books were his storyboards." Writers more informed than me, including you, have pointed out how closely the movie follows the books with their three interwoven, or perhaps patched together, story lines. Closely, very closely. But, while you are delighted to see the books you love transferred to the screen, I'm not. I said, "The effect is of a waxworks rather than a new permutation." This is where we are out of sync in this discussion.

If you transfer a comic book to a movie what are you doing? You're adapting to another medium, going from one visual medium to another very different kind of visual medium.

If we read a Jane Austen novel we're reading words that evoke scenes and dialogue but we can imagine them in our own way, and when it's made into a movie we get scenes and dialogue which don't conflict with any previous received imagery. But Miller's books have comic book or graphic novel images that are like artfully composed freeze-frames, and those gave Rodriguez his basic ideas, but he joined together the relatively very few images into three-dimensional imagery.

In doing this, he added tons of stuff, image-wise. I look at the books and I get one feeling; I look at the movie and I get another. This is because as I've said before, not only are the ways of composing the scenes different in the freeze-frame book images, but they're black and white drawings with a lot of white while in the movie the prevailing color seems to be gray (I called it "gloppy" because to me there's a greasy look to it) and the figures are puffy and three-dimensional instead of flat and elegantly drawn in line. But , because of all the computer imagery and the heavy duty makeup devices used in Sin City, the figures they don't look completely real as the figures in the Superman or Batman or Spiderman movies do. Nor do they have a pleasing artificiality such as you find in Waking Life or some animations. You've got something weirdly betwixt and between, somewhat like the computerized humans in Polar Express. This is what I was trying to say in my review.

You are delighted at how closely Rodriguez follows Miller's books. I see it as mindless and a creative failure.

The contrast between Miller's books and Rodriguez/Miller's movie may be clearer to me because I haven't practically memorized the books, and I'm not distracted by the close story-board following of plot, scene-sequence, and dialogue that you keep talking about and so I notice more how different watching the movie feels from looking at the books. A comic book/graphic novel is one thing and a movie is another. That's where I think there's a big difference. And when the transfer takes place, the comic book mindset becomes grating, the violence too horrible, the retribution too childish.

So when you say, "Also Chris, what pray tell do I have to do to illustrate that the film and books are one?" I'd have to answer, nothing, because you can't. They're one in one sense but totally different in another and we're talking about surface details vs. overall feeling and effect.

Quote:

---

The colors are the most glaring difference.

---

Well, that's a huge difference. The look is completely different. Maybe you're beginning to see what I mean? A movie is visual, and so is a graphic novel. If the look is so different, then the effect is different.

As for your never having possessed a driver's license, that may shed further light on your attitude toward cars and your finding them "manly." Women drive cars too though and I still don't know what you mean. I want to know. You mention being in the army but I assume you've never killed people either, which may help explain your eagerness to fire an Uzi.

I do understand the "manly" comment in terms of cars. I find that there are two kinds of car guys:

1. Those who simply love the design of certain cars.

2. Those who live and love to drive. These folks enter rallies. They think front wheel drive, automatic transmissions and traction control are abominations. They tinker with their cars and find the lack of reliability of their classics to be an endearing quality. They remove the seats of the car to clean the interior.


I have a buddy who is of the first type. He doesn't own a car. His wife does 99% of the driving but he is a designer and he has pictures of cars all over his home office and his office at work.

Another friend of the second type owns a 05' Jetta turbo as his main vehicle and an old Porsche 914/6, he watches racing on "Speedvision" in his spare time and loves to drive.

I believe it was Aristotle who said "moderation in all things." So I count myself as being squarely in the middle. I love the design of many cars: Ferrari 246 Dino, Porsche 550 Spyder, and the new Ford GT. But I love driving. Give me a manual tranny, rear wheel drive and a good power to weight ratio.

"Manly" is a real dangerous word to use around here where I live in PC land, about as bad as using "gay" as a pejorative, which lately unfortunately a lot of kids may do. And it means about as much as "sexy" or "cool" in this context of debating the virtues and faults of a movie. That car bodies and driving cars is something men like to do is obvious and I too have always liked both to admire the designs and get out on the road especially a winding hilly road in a small sports car. Also to the point, little boys seem to particularly love to play with tiny car and truck models. This gets to the appeal of Sin City's themes to a certain audience but doesn't say much about its faults or merits. Generally I'd think a grown up person would more tend to get behind 'manliness' in the sense of being brave and stoical and decent rather than for the hardware he owns and operates.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stevetseitz
"Touch of Evil" is a great movie but rumor has it Orson Welles didn't even want to make it.

---

I'd also call it a great movie. Welles wanted to make this film very much but Universal fired him during post-production and released two "bastard" versions, one in the 50s and another in the 70s. Both violated Welles's vision of this film. Luckily, thanks to a 50+ page-long memo to Universal sent by the master, a proper version was finally assembled and restored for release in 1998. The whole story and the entire memo can be found here:www.wellesnet.com/touch_memo1.htm

Oscar...yes you are correct. I perhaps put that the wrong way. Welles didn't want to make the film the STUDIO wanted to make. I own the "director's cut" which includes the memo of which you speak on the, alas, archaic Laserdisc format.

Chris...I agree that "manliness" shouldn't be defined by our hardware but what we have on the inside. There has been a strong secular movement to redefine gender in the past decade and deny any innate differences between men and women. I think that can only be described as silly.

And it can't be denied that men love gadgets. Part of the James Bond appeal is his use of gadgets in every film. When I think of "manly" movies I think of of movies like "Lawrence of Arabia", "Seven Samurai", "Once upon a Time in the West", "Amistad", "It's a Wonderful Life", "The Searchers" and "Braveheart".

Uncle Argyle: "First I'll teach ya to use this (points to young Wallace's noggin)...then I'll teach ya to use this (brandishes his sword.)