Sin City

[oscar jubis]

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

[cinemabon]

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.

[stevetseitz]

>>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.

[Johann]

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.

[tabuno]

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.

[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.

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.

[stevetseitz]

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.

[tabuno]

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.

[tabuno]

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).

[tabuno]

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

[Chris Knipp]

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.

(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.

(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:

(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.

[stevetseitz]

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".

[Chris Knipp]

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.

[stevetseitz]

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."

[Johann]

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.