"Is That Your Finger?"
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005; d. Shane Black; Robert Downey, Jr., Val Kilmer, Michelle Monaghan) Following an abomination of a style piece like Domino with another style piece is dangerous. Style pieces often don't work, which sets me up to see yet another awful film. Style pieces don't work as a function of a timeworn principle of mine, which states that 'you are neither as cool nor as shitty as you think you are.'
To build a film around flashiness, deconstruction, and pithy self-awareness, you have to be supremely convinced of your coolness and your uncoolness all at once. You have to say 'look at me,' even as you undo the skein of whatever it is that you're doing that makes you interesting. Take for example, Hudson Hawk. This movie was an exercise in stylization. At no point did the movie let you forget that you were watching a movie. It played with time, setting, ended scenes randomly, and broke the fourth wall constantly. Either you find this anticness endearing and loveable (as I did, but I freely confess that Bruce Willis is a personal hero, and that his run on Moonlighting, which featured many of these same tricks, were formative for me--more on this another time) or you find the movie to be atrocious, because it holds you at a distance, mocks you for watching it, and laughs at you as often as you laugh at it. Which are also reasons that I love Hudson Hawk.
I've already cited Domino as an exercise in stylization that does not pay off. Again, it plays with time, setting, and never quite lets you forget you're in a movie by employing 90210 actors as themselves. However, I believe Domino holds you at a distance with contempt. It has no sense of humor about itself, instead snarking about you and your bourgeois values about storytelling cliches like character and plot. Domino is the hot stupid girl at a party who regards you with a gimlet eye without realizing she has toilet paper stuck to her shoe.
Another example of a style piece that doesn't work is Scream. Scream is often cited as a classic in deconstruction, which I've never quite understood. It is a well-done slasher film, that's all. It doesn't say anything about what a slasher film is or what it does, nor does it illuminate the drawbacks or limitations of the form. Just because it cites what it's going to do before it does it doesn't make it smart or interesting. We all have friends who can loudly anticipate their mistakes, but go through with the bad decisions anyway. We call them idiots.
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang works. Sure, it says offensive things. Sure, it plays suicide and murder for laughs. Sure, it lies to you about what's going on. Sure, it's needlessly complicated, while simultaneously making a massive joke out of the proceedings. But unlike Domino, events matter. An arm is removed in Domino for shock value. A finger is removed in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, but it means something. The loss of the finger gets Downey stoned and passed out in the back of the car, which moves the plot along. The loss of the finger works as an allusion to the other film noirs that deface their heroes, like Chinatown. The way in which the finger is lost also parodies those genre conventions. Downey loses his finger to his dream girl by accident, not a cruel and impersonable enemy who is threatening him off the case. In that parody, however, the moment reveals something about their relationship; throughout their relationship, she has damaged him and continues to damage him, and he keeps coming back for more. It positions Michelle Monaghan as an accidental femme fatale (dangerous because she makes bad choices, not because she is evil) and Robert Downey as clumsy, dogged, and loyal.
Similarly to the layers of plot, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang also works because the characters matter on multiple levels. Although we are held at a distance by the stylization, Downey and Kilmer play likeable characters. The distance again has a function, allowing two talented actors to fill a role, but also parody their public persona. There is a special frisson in seeing Downey's character stoned at a party or breaking into a stranger's home. We are able to engage with Downey as both his thief/actor/detective who self-sabotages his attempts at fulfilling his full potential, and as Downey the celebrity talent self-saboteur. Similarly, Kilmer's general dickishness play well as the character and as the public persona of Kilmer.
Is it a great film? No. Most meta experiences aren't, because they are too clinical and too cold. On the other hand, I admire its sheer audaciousness, the fact that it works to be cool and eager to be loved all at once. If nothing else, it is a virtuoso performance by writer/director and stars, and if that virtuosity is ultimately junk food for the soul...well, sometimes you want the creme brulee, and sometimes you want the McDonald's fries.
Next Time: Roadhouse.
To build a film around flashiness, deconstruction, and pithy self-awareness, you have to be supremely convinced of your coolness and your uncoolness all at once. You have to say 'look at me,' even as you undo the skein of whatever it is that you're doing that makes you interesting. Take for example, Hudson Hawk. This movie was an exercise in stylization. At no point did the movie let you forget that you were watching a movie. It played with time, setting, ended scenes randomly, and broke the fourth wall constantly. Either you find this anticness endearing and loveable (as I did, but I freely confess that Bruce Willis is a personal hero, and that his run on Moonlighting, which featured many of these same tricks, were formative for me--more on this another time) or you find the movie to be atrocious, because it holds you at a distance, mocks you for watching it, and laughs at you as often as you laugh at it. Which are also reasons that I love Hudson Hawk.
I've already cited Domino as an exercise in stylization that does not pay off. Again, it plays with time, setting, and never quite lets you forget you're in a movie by employing 90210 actors as themselves. However, I believe Domino holds you at a distance with contempt. It has no sense of humor about itself, instead snarking about you and your bourgeois values about storytelling cliches like character and plot. Domino is the hot stupid girl at a party who regards you with a gimlet eye without realizing she has toilet paper stuck to her shoe.
Another example of a style piece that doesn't work is Scream. Scream is often cited as a classic in deconstruction, which I've never quite understood. It is a well-done slasher film, that's all. It doesn't say anything about what a slasher film is or what it does, nor does it illuminate the drawbacks or limitations of the form. Just because it cites what it's going to do before it does it doesn't make it smart or interesting. We all have friends who can loudly anticipate their mistakes, but go through with the bad decisions anyway. We call them idiots.
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang works. Sure, it says offensive things. Sure, it plays suicide and murder for laughs. Sure, it lies to you about what's going on. Sure, it's needlessly complicated, while simultaneously making a massive joke out of the proceedings. But unlike Domino, events matter. An arm is removed in Domino for shock value. A finger is removed in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, but it means something. The loss of the finger gets Downey stoned and passed out in the back of the car, which moves the plot along. The loss of the finger works as an allusion to the other film noirs that deface their heroes, like Chinatown. The way in which the finger is lost also parodies those genre conventions. Downey loses his finger to his dream girl by accident, not a cruel and impersonable enemy who is threatening him off the case. In that parody, however, the moment reveals something about their relationship; throughout their relationship, she has damaged him and continues to damage him, and he keeps coming back for more. It positions Michelle Monaghan as an accidental femme fatale (dangerous because she makes bad choices, not because she is evil) and Robert Downey as clumsy, dogged, and loyal.
Similarly to the layers of plot, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang also works because the characters matter on multiple levels. Although we are held at a distance by the stylization, Downey and Kilmer play likeable characters. The distance again has a function, allowing two talented actors to fill a role, but also parody their public persona. There is a special frisson in seeing Downey's character stoned at a party or breaking into a stranger's home. We are able to engage with Downey as both his thief/actor/detective who self-sabotages his attempts at fulfilling his full potential, and as Downey the celebrity talent self-saboteur. Similarly, Kilmer's general dickishness play well as the character and as the public persona of Kilmer.
Is it a great film? No. Most meta experiences aren't, because they are too clinical and too cold. On the other hand, I admire its sheer audaciousness, the fact that it works to be cool and eager to be loved all at once. If nothing else, it is a virtuoso performance by writer/director and stars, and if that virtuosity is ultimately junk food for the soul...well, sometimes you want the creme brulee, and sometimes you want the McDonald's fries.
Next Time: Roadhouse.
posted by Jamie at 2:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home