Let’s talk about : The Ocean’s Trilogy

OC123

While we are on the topic of greatest movies ever made, let’s talk about the Ocean’s trilogy.

Hi there Avengers Infinity something. (yawn)

Steven Soderbergh is unpredictable, he retired from movie making some four years ago and then came back to make Logan Lucky, many called it an inversion of his Ocean’s trilogy; functional and without any style. The whole style vs substance would put the Ocean’s trilogy in bad light, but in reality style is the substance in these films.

Soderbergh himself has taken various positions on the Oceans franchise, from being appreciative to being ‘I don’t really care if you don’t like it’; but he has admitted that a lot of work went into the trilogy and that is why it is interesting (and great).A carefully constructed ode to old hollywood but still very modern and yet entertaining cinema.

Full disclosure: the Ocean’s trilogy for me is up there (obviously with LOTR) in terms of breaking up characters and their tales into three parts. The Lord of the Rings also had the cushion of a literary work and generations of readers who are familiar with the story.

Breaking down the Ocean’s trilogy; 11 sets up Ocean and his men brilliantly and 13 perfectly completes the story. Twelve falls short because it is unlike 11 or 13, but definitely the most interesting.

Soderbergh’s source material was a 1960 film directed by Moldovian-American director Lewis Milestone*; the original Ocean’s 11 headlined by Frank Sinatra and  Dean Martin, a film that currently holds only 48% weight on critic aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes.

Even as a choice this seems quite odd for a remake. Soderbergh is like that, he professes that many directors too are like him: attracted to not so greater works of great filmmakers. Positively, this could be seen as learning from other’s mistakes but realistically it is about ignoring what ‘most people’ have agreed upon.

Great work usually comes from not-so great sources

Having seen the 1960 film, memorable is not something I would associate with it; but I can guess it was the playful tone and actors bouncing off each other that attracted Soderbergh. He makes the source material his own and we get with three well directed classic films on professionalism and camaraderie.

Show, but don’t show-off

Like most films in this genre where we are indeed cheering for the bad guys, there is a sense of casual code; the team may seem like an assembly of rag-tag crooks but really they are bound together by their professionalism and dislike for vanity.

Let’s look at the antagonist in the three films

  • Villain 1-Ocean’s 11: Terry Benedict: owner of 3 of the biggest casinos and suitably self-obsessed
  • Villain 2-Ocean’s 12: The Night Fox: a self congratulatory European gentleman thief
  • Villain 3-Ocean’s 13: Willy Bank: megalomaniac, obsessed with building the best hotel on the strip

If there had been an Ocean’s 14, then it is quite possible that the rat-pack would have taken on Tony Stark (yawn). The only difference between the good guys and the bad guys is “you can be be cool by not saying so”

Also take into account that the villains have to be over the top, so that the thievery can be normalized but there is always an undercurrent of Ocean and co having a personal stake in the happenings. It is not about the money, but about the job.

It is always about the job

Coming back to professionalism: to sum up, the three films are about a bunch of guys who really really(emphasis mine) love their job and are very good at it, ready to accept unreasonable challenges but don’t want to be seen as very serious about it. It’s part of their act.

Daniel Ocean claims to look at the angles of buildings even when he is not working, Linus spends the prize of the first movie in improving his ‘skills’, Rusty tries running a hotel but feels he is not good at anything else.

The dialogue is loaded about skills, tactics(looky loo with a bundle of joy!) and planning , everyone working towards doing a better con than before. Like Basher puts it ” we don’t do the same gag twice“.

Much has been written about work and fun, as though they are too separate things; and coming from a society where the skills you have is almost always not the one which would be called to action at work I am able to relate. Meaning work is the complete opposite of fun.

But here films could have been about a bunch of accountants and still they would have made it in interesting. Oceans for me in many ways is about the triumph of work and not without the help of any hack productivity handbook.  A very American thing, but countries are really built by hard working passionate men (and women), who don’t usually get their due.

It is also about the gang

Already covered is their common dislike to individual success, Ocean despite being a master thief doesn’t work alone, the loot is equally shared even if everybody’s skills are not completely utilized.

Two of the three movies happen just to set things right for their mentor Reuben, and all the time they spend together is playful and devoid of any real conflict; the spirit of friendship pervades all through, just like friends having a good time in real life.

But more importantly, it all comes together very well

  • Addictive. Re-watchable. Laugh-out-loud funny.
  • Sweeping the casino carpet type cinematography.
  • A soundtrack that stays with you for life.
  • Blow-your-cinephile-mind team up.
  • Rusty and Danny saying so much by not saying a word.
  • The twins saying so much but actually saying nothing.
  • The Amazing Yen!
  • Bruce Willis as himself.
  • And introducing  Tess as Julia Roberts! (the whole Looky Loo sequence)
  • Vincent Cassel -laser dance.
  • Viva La Revolucion!
  • Al Pacino ordering a Samsung phone
  • Everybody knows Mandarin
  • “They have enough armed personnel to occupy Paris”
  • George Clooney saying “yeah”
  • The fountains swaying to Debussy’s Claire De Lune

The general coolness of it all. I mean what is not to like?

Among the greatest Hollywood films, indeed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Out of The Past: Farewell, My Lovely (1975)

 

FML6 copyI have concluded that reading Raymond Chandler at an impressionable age has contributed the most to my further life choices, be it ‘literature’, movies, terse sentences and of course typing in the ‘courier new’ font.

Chandler started writing when the oil industry crashed and he had nothing much left to do, his creation reflects himself; being weary is his core competence.

If I could go back and play the irritating game invented for social engagement, ‘describe your creation in just one word’, Chandler would have said “tired”. If he was kind, he would add, “I’m tired. Enough!” As always breaking the rules.

So when there is a delay in our usual blog posts, it is probably because we are generally tired. Tired of ourselves, tired of the world, tired and yet careful not to add the growing empty mass that is film writing.  Readers must be thankful in that case.

We forgot to add one word to the above: growing boring empty mass that is film writing.

Boring.

 

 “You’re a very good-looking man to be in this kinda business”

Enter Robert Mitchum

Marlowe is supposed to be in his mid-thirties in the works, curiously but not unnatural the best portrayals of the private eye has come from very old ‘has-seen-it-all’ men.

Bogart was in his forties and Robert Mitchum almost touching sixty, it’s that kind of a role. It requires that kind of experience, it is the ‘hamlet’ of all detective roles, no I’m not joking. A sequel to the Big Sleep was called ‘Perchance to Dream’ which is from the famous of all famous soliloquies.

People and war have made our hero tired, and out of this tiredness comes sparkling wisdom.

Why does Marlowe still do it?

FML4

For the much quoted “25 dollars a day plus expenses?”

Nah, Marlowe doesn’t snoop around for money, but he doesn’t evoke moral mightiness too, he certainly doesn’t identify with a cause or putting criminal behind bars. Thankfully he is not insufferable with his ‘genius’ and actually very funny, like a real person.

I guess he just likes looking at people and what they do.

Looking brings us to Robert Mitchum, in many ways the spiritual remnant of Bogart’s distant masculinity, but looking at Mitchum’s eyes we know that this present sadness had once seen sparkle, that alone makes me feel that Mitchum is truer as Marlowe.

Marlowe watches because he knows that deep down all the depravity there is some tenderness, that’s all he looks for in a client, not money, not name, not fame. And he will do anything to look at that tiny true part of yourself.

Evil doesn’t startle him as much as innocence and goodness

People first, plot go to hell

 

For Chandler, the plot was secondary, the characters weren’t, he would never describe anyone unfairly nor would he puncture them for the sake of plot.

An open opponent of this whole locked room plotting business made him see people as people and not as clues or alibi to get going to the next page.

Marlowe is the same wise-ass to the police as he is to the crooks. An ending in a Chandler story is not its logical conclusion or hurrah for its hero, but the acceptance of reality.

The thread of Farewell My Lovely the film is very simple and it follows the book closely, just out of jail thug Moose Malloy wants to get his girl back. Will Marlowe do it or not?

And the hits keep on coming

FML1

Marlowe is always narrating his tale, when we meet him he is just out of a case, naturally tired; Mitchum looks like he just wants to go home but cannot when confronted by his innocent of a thug client.

Within moments Marlowe becomes the centre-piece of a worm caught in a web, and all he does is just give a sideward glance.

Very easy to be dismissed as non-acting, especially in the age that we live in (as in the golden age of non-acting); but I think tiredness is difficult to bring out as an emotion without being dramatic.

Mitchum gets hit on the head, shot at, danced with, seduced by, but all through the film but he plays it like a detective who knows the ending every single time, people will be people.

I don’t really care about the twist in the end

There is a twist in the end, but the film (naturally the novel) is not moving towards it a big reveal way, for fans of detective fiction and crime thrillers this could prove dampening.

Many things happen and so does a twist.

Detection truly could be one of the most boring jobs if not for the humongous amounts of exciting literature written about it.

<pause for reflection>

Maybe all jobs are boring or it is the nature of them to become boring. But somehow Marlowe and hence Mitchum(because of his ability to understand the character) seem to have cracked it.

This detective is a seeker of the intangible, something remote and indescribable as human kindness, that is his spiritual quest, something not even the thighs of a femme fatale or the muzzle of a gun could distract him from.

Hamlet of the detective class, indeed.

That’s an admirable state to be in and this is an admirable movie.

FML2

 

Out of the past is our series on movies that are anything but current,new,fresh etc; we find the idea of film writing just for the sake of a movie release distressing and also it demeans the timelessness of film itself. Mad or what, we won’t be reviewing old films,just writing about them.

 

 

 

FRS: The Mummy

 

TheMummy1 copy

So, we all know what FRS is right? Right?

Vacation’s over boys!

-101: Narration, even if it is in Russel Crowe’s voice also cheating-like. Because narration brings in a point of view but the rest of the film doesn’t even acknowledge that. What’s this da big holly.

-23: Tired Russel Crowe is extremely tired, maybe it is his character, maybe it is us. We are extremely troubled when our favourite actors land such roles. Taking this opportunity to welcome Kamal Haasan to Big Boss. Hi.

+25: Speaking of favourite actors: Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

A word on Cruise, let’s give the critics the benefit of the doubt, he does play the same character in every film, which of course is ‘pop criticism’, but we have a feels that Cruise knows what he is doing because at 50+, he was able to bring out something as exciting as Rogue Nation.

There is no actual rule that a screenplay should not lend itself to its larger than life lead actor, in fact it requires some really smart writing.

Boys and Cruise is among the last of the old world Hollywood type movie stars da, like that only.

-50: Speaking of smart writing, Tom Cruise being chased by a 5000-year-old Mummy who thinks he is her chosen one, like really this is the Nagesh arc from Utharavu Indri Ulle Vaa

+22: These ancient Egyptians are very specific in their rituals, so elaborate

-100: Elaborate Egyptian rituals can be interrupted

-343: Movie rests entirely on the above point

-5: Bossugal of Egypt think that Mummifying is the worst of punishments not realising that it is the most favourable situation for Hollywood Bossugal

+6: Hero does not say the useless overused line “I hate mummies” in this franchise

-21: Hero thinks stealing and protecting artefacts are the same, although he is not Indiana Jones. Hero does not belong in a museum

+23: Bug-Calling: the pioneering tech to communicate in Antman seems like walkie-talkie because The Mummy can do all that without tech only.

+56: Over-powerful Mummy is over-powerful.

TheMummy2 copy

It’s like unbeatable Mummy meets (Mission) Impossible Cruise

+5: We actually came up with the above line

FRS Rule of Thumb: Whenever main villain is captured and put on full display, you can bet your house in Adayar and that estate in Conoor that villain will surely escape.

-3: Conoor

-1: Adayar

-192: Hero sleeps with heroine as mark of love, this is mentioned multiple times in the film but never actually shown. Boss, why do you think we watch English films in the first place (dubbed also same). Please convey to concerned department.

-76: American hero saying “What the hell” when they don’t know what is happening

 

+50: Very good to decent (we give range, for specific data we are not one IBM) action sequences, I mean you don’t really care about Mummies getting hit left right and centre, but it is fun and funny, there is even a Raiders type fight in the lorry.

-10: American archaeologists immediately get into, “what we have here is a 2000-year-old artefact” kind of voice recording which works ok as exposition, but second and third time it is like over professional, boring even

+101: Hero’s friend: yeah yeah he is funny, but then also (no spoilers) LOL this is one of the films where they give a twist to the companion character and much welcome change this is.

 

+5 Tom Cruise running away from things

From a strategic career point of view, I hope he runs away from what this franchise will become, oh wait, there is more. Strike that out.

-35.9: This concept of power, like u were first Pharaoh of one region, suddenly you want to rule whole world. Why? All your IAS officers are doing so well?

Also if you are princess of Egypt, high chance you will not inherit throne, not unlike modern times. Someone said history repeats itself, someone was right.

So, if we keep repeating this statement (which is ‘history repeats itself’) then we will be proving that person right. Right?

+22: Double Pupils

-208.112: Actually, we had decided in one FRS board meeting that we should not cut points for lack of originality, or lack of ideas or something along these lines. Because we believe that very few can come up with something new, see like this FRS itself is one modified (read as copy) format, but this and all if we see…Nevermind.

But still when you have the wealth of content with you (some 300 Universal monsters) … Hollywood Bossugal must revisit this whole franchise funding.

tenor

Oh before we go, there is no Rachel Weisz in this thing, we have no idea how many points we should cut for that alone.

 

Yours Sincerely

THE FRS Team

A LhF Production

Subam

Vanakkam