Sin City

[Chris Knipp]

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?

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.

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.

[Johann]

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)

[Chris Knipp]

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:

(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

"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:

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?

[tabuno]

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

[stevetseitz]

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.

[tabuno]

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.

[stevetseitz]

>>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.

[Chris Knipp]

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.

[stevetseitz]

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?

[Chris Knipp]

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.

[tabuno]

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.

[stevetseitz]

>>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.

[Chris Knipp]

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.

[stevetseitz]

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".

[tabuno]

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).