"The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" - Never Meet (and Shoot) Your Heroes

*I write these articles under the assumption that you’ve seen the movie, so...SPOILERS. Though one could argue the title, and history, has already spoiled the main event of the film.

With a lot of people seemingly just now realizing Brad Pitt can act with Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood and Ad Astra, I decided to go with The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford for this month’s western. I have liked Pitt’s work for years, and 12 Monkeys was the first time I saw him more as an actor than a face. He has plenty of great roles under his belt, but I consider his work in this film some of his best. The Jesse James of this film is a mean, brutal, reflective, paranoid, charismatic, and generally complex character, and Pitt handles every element with ease. Perhaps it’s the meta-quality of the film that makes it stand out for me, as Jesse James was a celebrity of the time, Pitt could easily find common ground in that area. How often must Pitt deal with people in his life that come to him with a certain expectation of who he is based on performances and tabloid stories rather than his actual self. Jesse James, at least in the film (and probably in real life), also had to deal with perceptions of him compared to the real, very human, man he really was. Watching Pitt navigate that character is just one of the many pleasures of this underseen, understated western. 

Myth Vs. Reality

It should be clear by my previous choices for westerns in recent months that I prefer non-traditional, or modern westerns. I enjoy traditional westerns, but the westerns I want to own and revisit from time to time usually need to be a bit different, and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford certainly qualifies. In fact, the story of Jesse James is the perfect subject for a modern western, because, just like Jesse James, the myth of the Old West time period compared to historical reality is often very different.

In the film, Robert Ford starts off idolizing Jesse James and his gang because he believed the stories he read as a child, which made James out to be a Robin Hood type hero. A big part of the reason Ford eventually betrays James is because he is disillusioned with James after meeting him; don’t meet your heroes, and all that. This allows the film to be a statement about celebrity, as well, and not just in regards to James. Ford becomes a celebrity after killing James, and he gets a taste of the downfall of having your reputation arrive before you. The film is a bit of a condemnation of celebrity culture and the dangers of chasing stardom at the expense of your soul. That element alone resonates with me for days after each viewing because the ending is so depressing and perfect, with Robert Ford dying as a result of his quest for celebrity, with nothing about his life turning out the way he had hoped. 

Much like Robert Ford’s disillusionment, researching the Old West also leads to a bit of disappointment when compared to the Hollywood version we’ve seen for years. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is one of many westerns that highlights the reality of the era rather than glorifying it. 

The most obvious example that this is not a traditional western is the gunfight between Dick Liddil, Wood Hite, and Robert Ford. Dick and Wood shoot at each other at nearly point blank range, unloading their guns without either of them inflicting a mortal wound. Just like Unforgiven (which I will also write about in the future), the shootout is meant to show that when it comes to actually pulling a trigger a lot of factors come into play and the result is more sloppy than cinematic. I love a good Old West shootout as much as anyone, but I also appreciate realism. We all like to think we could be Clint Eastwood when the chips are down, but more likely most of us would be like Dick Liddil, missing shot after shot as we fall out of bed.

Aside from the shootouts, I love it when historical films highlight the mundane day-to-day life of the time period. Travel time and communication plays a big factor in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. People are often gone because a trip from place to place takes weeks. Word travels slowly, so scheming is a bit easier as is hiding from people. Robert Ford is only forced to play his hand when Jesse reads a newspaper article. It’s a slow time, and the film replicates it poetically rather than in a boring manner.

I hate to refer to a film as a “tone poem” at this point, mainly because I’ve overused it over the years, especially in reference to films like those of Terence Malick (whose later films make for an easy comparison to The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford). It’s not that it doesn’t fit, because it certainly does, but I just feel like it has become my go-to descriptor for a movie others might consider boring. I guess I just need to start being blunt about: a lot of people find this film boring, and I can understand why. But I find each frame beautiful and compelling, even when nothing is going on. 

Anyone who might find this film boring is probably just dealing with incorrect expectations. Many people still want their westerns to be old-fashioned, filled with stand-offs and shoot-outs. I still like that stuff, too, but I knew going in that this movie wasn’t promising anything like that. Perhaps it’s the title. Speaking of which...

TAOJJBTCRF, and Other Reasons Why This Movie May Have Failed Financially.

You may have noticed I have made no effort to shorten the title of this film. First off, the facetious shortening in the title of this section looks pretty stupid. Secondly, a title this long should just be embraced at this point. It is the title of the book the film is based on, and, according to IMDb trivia, Brad Pitt insisted that the title remain. 

I like the title, but for years after this movie came out I would always get a weird look when I recommended it. I had similar issues with The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (another movie I love and will write about soon). I would get into a conversation with someone about westerns and recommend these two films and just get a weird look after spitting out these mouthfuls of titles. If just calling this film The Assassination of Jesse James would have made it more popular, I wish they would have altered it a bit.

Title aside, this film was never going to be a huge success. The aforementioned tone poem aspect is usually an indicator that not many people are going to bother with the movie. Plus, it’s on the long side, and it’s just not a traditional film. All the things I like about this movie are also the things that most likely kept it from being a success. I could accept that if this film had a bunch of nobodies in it, but how did this happen with Brad Pitt as Jesse James?

I remember when this movie (kind of) came out in theaters. I had seen the previews and was very excited to see it, even reading the book beforehand. I thought it looked amazing. The release date came and went and no theaters near me picked it up. It eventually left theaters entirely never getting close to me. (I didn’t check Louisville [an hour and a half away] at the time, but Evansville [an hour away and my go-to for smaller films] never got it.) I couldn’t believe it. Brad Pitt’s new movie did not get a wide release. This was the first time I recognized the death of star power. Years ago, just having someone like Pitt in a movie would warrant at least a small wide release. But now, it doesn’t matter. If a studio doesn’t think the film can make a definite profit, then it doesn’t matter who’s in the cast; that movie is not getting a wide release. It’s always annoyed me so much, especially living in the Midwest. I just want studios to let the audience decide. Give the film a week in wide release, especially since everything is digital now and doesn’t require expensive film reels dispersed nationwide. But it won’t happen thanks to streaming and whatnot. I just wish so much that I had the chance to see this on the big screen.

Roger Deakins didn't win for this?

Until he won for Blade Runner 2049, Roger Deakins’s losing streak at the Oscars for Best Cinematography was a cruel joke. This man has made some of the most beautiful films ever made, and he somehow got passed over each year, including the year The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford came out. Deakins lost to Robert Elswit for There Will Be Blood, so it’s hard to be too mad about that, especially when you realize Deakins was double nominated for this and No Country for Old Men, and he most likely split votes because of it. This film is special, though, because he created such a unique western look for the film.

The narrated moments that show parts of Jesse’s daily life look like moving daguerreotypes of the time, and it’s a magical effect. Not to mention the train sequence early in the film, which Deakins claims is one of his finest achievements. His work in this film is why I want to see the longer cut of the film that was released at festivals. 

Deakins claimed in an interview that Criterion isn’t interested in releasing it (pretty much the only way it could happen). Why the people who chose to give Armageddon a special edition won’t touch this is beyond me. Of course, I want just want to see more of this movie overall, but I also want to see all the work Deakins did that didn’t make it. Apparently there was a four-hour cut originally, but writer/director Andrew Dominik claims he’s happy with the theatrical cut. With all due respect, let us be the judge of that.

I suppose that sums up how I feel about this movie. It’s a nearly three hour, slow moving treatise on celebrity and myths, and I want at least another hour of it.

Random Thoughts 

"The president of the Confederacy discerned his wife's needs and satisfied them, with the utmost skill and the utmost courtesy."

Bob sitting down just as chow is called and everyone else gets up is such a perfect introduction to his awkward, out of place character.

God, Garrett Dillahunt is so good at looking stupid.

Sam Shepard sees through Bob's bullshit immediately. 

"Well, what am I supposed to say to that?"

"Sidekick?!"

"So you can examine my grit and intelligence."

"I don't know what it is about you, but the more you talk, the more you give me the willies."

I don't know why, but it makes me laugh when Frank calls Jesse "dingus."

The approach of the train has so many beautiful moments: the train hitting the camera and continuing forward, the flashing lights revealing the robbers, Jesse's silhouette as the train approaches, etc. Not to mention the score.

"I about heard all I want to about sidekicks."

I wish Shepard was in this longer. I could watch him talk shit to Casey Affleck and Sam Rockwell all day.

What happened to Paul Schneider? After he left Parks and Rec, he has worked sparingly. He gave an interview about being more selective in his work, but it just seems strange to drop off as much as he has.

Brad Pitt's fake laugh when he visits the Fords after Renner's death is amazing. 

This movie could also be called The Many Tense Conversations of Jesse James with Ed Miller, Dick Liddil, Charley Ford, Robert Ford, and Others.

Ted Levine!

I don't mind the casting of James Carville as the governor, but it is a but distracting.

The noise Pitt makes when he says he could see the "gears grinding" after he almost cut Bob's throat might be my favorite moment from his career.

So much of this film is shot through that old timey glass that obscures the view a bit. It's like the era itself: everything we know about it is a bit blurry, the full vision forever elusive. Sorry for the poetic analysis; this movie brings that out in me.

The actual death feels staged like a play, which is, of course, fitting since the Fords would go on to put on the play.

Sam Rockwell is so good during the play sequences, first acting terribly, and finally becoming incredibly dark.

Everything after Jesse is killed is my favorite part of the film. The transition of Bob from annoying murderous fanboy to tragic man of regret is perfect.

"Charley was only expected not to slouch, or mutter. And to transport his sicknesses to the alley before letting them go."

I love Nick Cave's score, and his cameo singing a folk song about Jesse James.

I can't think of another film that truly made me end up liking, or at least sympathizing with, a character I initially hated. A lot of that is because of Affleck’s performance, which I still consider the best of his career.

Because of that, the last moment of the film now gives me chills and nearly made me cry this time.

..

"Sicario" Is the Dark, Tense Film the Drug War Deserves.

Sicario

Director Dennis Villeneuve has recently established himself as a master of tension, mood, and atmosphere. His two most recent films, Prisoners and Enemy set the tone for what to expect from his latest film, Sicario. Villeneuve’s ability to take basic establishing shots of arguably mundane settings and make them foreboding and intense is impressive. It’s a way of creating an effective style without calling too much attention to itself.

With Sicario, Villeneuve has the deserts of Mexico and the American southwest to play with. Lengthy establishing shots (renowned director of photography Roger Deakins impresses yet again) paired with a menacing score (by Johann Johannsson) let us know that this film about the drug war is going to be dark, intense, and disturbing. Mood isn’t everything in a film, but it certainly helps draw the viewer in. Working with a script from Taylor Sheridan (best known as an actor from Sons of Anarchy), Villeneuve is able to take what could have been a cookie-cutter action-thriller and make it into something special.

A movie about the drug war needs to be elevated because this is a story that has been told before, in a way. There have been movies about the drug war in Mexico for decades, but Sicario rises above the rest thanks to Villeneuve’s direction. That is not to say Sheridan’s script is weak. It is not terribly original, but it is interesting thanks to the perspective Sheridan chose.

The story is told from FBI agent Kate Macer’s perspective. Macer (Emily Blunt) is asked to join a joint task force made up of vague government types including Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro. Neither one wants to tell Macer much, so we do not know much. The most Macer, and the audience, is told is that the mission is to shake things up for the cartel and “dramatically overreact.” There is more to it, of course, which is the mystery of the film. The title itself is a bit of a mystery as “sicario” means “hitman” in Spanish, but we are not told who the hitman is. Having the main character be the new member of a group is a standard ploy of screenwriting to give the viewer someone to empathize with, but it is interesting here when you consider that Macer may represent the typical American’s reaction to the drug war. Not to get into spoilers, but Macer’s story arc is much more powerful when you view her as a representation of America in general.

While the character of Macer may be a bit plain, Blunt is still able to show her impressive range. Even though she plays a successful FBI agent, this is not your typical strong independent female role. Normally, a female character like this would be shown overpowering every man in her way, but Sicario takes a more realistic route. Macer can hold her own in a raid, but in a hand to hand fight with a man who has fifty pounds on her, things do not go so smoothly. While Macer is physically capable of her job, she struggles with the moral implications of her work with the task force. It is a role that requires Blunt to show equal parts strength and weakness, and she is great at both.

Brolin gives a fun performance in his supporting role, providing some much needed comedic relief to an otherwise joyless film. But it’s Del Toro who steals the film. As Alejandro, a mysterious and deadly soldier, he is able to make a menacing character surprisingly sympathetic. Del Toro comes across as the true star of the film. And Macer (and we the audience) are just there to watch him work.

Since this is a film about the drug war, there is a bit of action, as well. Villneuve does not glorify any of the violence, instead making most of the action scenes quick and brutal, showcasing how savage the situation has become. Each “action” scene is an incredibly tense moment that is much more effective than anything you will find in traditional action films of late.

Every positive element of the film is amplified by the style Villeneuve infuses into the film. Perhaps this is giving him too much credit, but mood and atmosphere cannot be undervalued when it comes to films about serious topics. Villeneuve’s style demands your close attention. And your close attention is rewarded with a tense, atmospheric “action” film that will have you contemplating a real world issue. In short, Sicario is what every serious film should be.

Sicario receives a:

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I really liked the dark ending of the film, with the whole mission being about supporting one cartel to take over the entire drug trade. It's hard to fault Brolin's reasoning, especially when he points out the impossibility of getting Americans to stop using drugs. It's not a nice solution, but maybe it's a realistic one. 

I liked Sicario quite a bit because of my interpretation of Macer's character. By the end of the film, I saw her as representative of America in general because of her inability to bring real change to the situation. When Alejandro visits her at the end to coerce a signature that will legalize all the illegal things they did, he tells her she isn't strong enough for the war. She is not a wolf. So she should move away from it. I feel like that sums up most of America's citizens in regard to the drug war. Most people can't handle the brutality of what's going on, but their drug use or lack of attention allows it to continue. We are not wolves, so rather than do something about it, we "move" out attention elsewhere, hoping someone else fixes it. This interpretation was solidified for me when Macer retrieved her gun, aimed it at Alejandro, but was not able to pull the trigger. She was left on the balcony, powerless. That symbolizes the typical American regarding the drug war. We're above it on the balcony in America, and we have the power to stop it, but we can't pull the trigger. I really wish the film had ended there, rather than ending up at the kids' soccer game in Juarez. The ending makes a powerful point (that was also made in Traffic, by the way), but the theme of the film would have been more evident if the film had ended with Alejandro walking away as a powerless Macer stands, defeated, on the balcony.

After watching this, it is clear why Villeneuve is directing the next Blade Runner. This film is actually quite similar, stylistically. Blade Runner featured lengthy establishing shots set to a unique score that solidified the mood and atmosphere of the film constantly. I am not officially excited for what I previously thought of as a needless sequel. I know Villeneuve will keep the new Blade Runner just as dark as the original.

Finally, hats off to Sicario for that brutal dinner scene at the end. For a second, I thought Alejandro would prove to be sympathetic to the innocent woman and children at the table, but he turned out to be just as brutal as he had been the entire film. He was truly a man on a mission. I have not found Del Toro this interesting in years. Hopefully he keeps this up with his role in the next Star Wars film.

Meet the new Bond, (almost the) same as the old Bond

Skyfall - Directed by Sam Mended, written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and John Logan, starring Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Ben Whishaw, Albert Finney, Ralph Fiennes, and Javier Bardem - Rated PG-13

This just makes sense: a Chigurh for a film in which Javier Bardem plays the villain.

 

 

 

 

Casino Royale marked the introduction of Daniel Craig as the new James Bond and set up his tenure as dark and brutal, which was quite a departure from a series that at one point went into outer space.  I loved the film, though some were not fans of the tonal shift and the lack of traditional Bond elements like Q and his gadgets.  Then Quantum of Solace came out and ruined everything (for me, at least).  It was utterly forgettable, had indecipherable action, and was implausible, but not in a fun way.  After that film, MGM (the Bond studio) went bankrupt and it put Bond on an indefinite hiatus.  Apparently all that time off allowed them to come back and get things right…again.

 

In many aspects, Skyfall serves as a segue into a new Bond, even though the actor is the same.  Q and the gadgets are back along with a lot of familiar music.  (There are also a lot of changes and additions that would be considered spoilers.)  There are plenty references to Bond being an older man and how the old ways need to give way to the new.  It basically felt like the filmmakers were saying, “You know that brooding, hulking Bond?  Well, we’ve toned him down a bit.  Meet the new Bond, (almost the) same as the old Bond.”  That is just fine with me.  I dig the more hardcore James Bond that Craig created, but I also love some gadgets.

 

Skyfall stands apart from other Bond films in that it is a very personal story for both Bond and MI6.  Bond is presumed dead at the end of the opening mission and is forced to resurrect himself as a spy.  MI6 is attacked and is forced to revaluate their function in a modern world.  Bond gets to do battle with a bitter old MI6 agent (Javier Bardem), and M (Judi Dench) gets to do battle with bureaucrats like Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes).  The stakes are exponentially higher than they were in Quantum, when Bond was trying to save the utility department of Colombia or something.

 

If the stakes are high, then the action will prosper.  Skyfall has a few gigantic action set pieces and they are all well shot and impressive.  Any action fan should be pleased, but you should not expect nonstop action.  In fact, there is about an hour lull between action sequences.  Normally, that would be a flaw in pacing, but the film does not suffer from it because all of the inner workings of MI6 are actually quite interesting.

 

Rarely do you get downtime in a sequel.  This is Daniel Craig’s third outing as Bond, so there is really no need for him to hang out in the office.  In the previous films, he never seemed to be in England.  Finally, he’s been corralled in a bit and the audience has a chance to breathe between location changes, a welcome change to the usual breakneck speed of sequels and action films.  The interactions between Bond and M help make this time bearable, as Skyfall brings to fruition their love/hate relationship.  Fiennes is there to mix things up, and Ben Whishaw, as Q, makes every scene he’s in a bit more interesting. 

 

A good Bond film is usually defined by its villain, though, not by the protagonists.  Javier Bardem was brought in to give Craig his first true villain.  I am a big fan of Mads Mikkelson (Casino Royale), but he was not very imposing as far as villains go.  He had an inhaler! (The villain in Quantum doesn’t even deserve mentioning; I only bring it up to let you know I did not forget about the boring Mathieu Amalric.)  Bardem ratchets it up as a weird, tittering, angry psychopath.  He’s basically like the Joker from The Dark Knight, except he’s more than happy to let you know why he’s so messed up.  Some have already cried foul about the similarities, but I’m cool with it.  He’s entertaining, and that’s all that matters.  In fact, my only complaint is that we don’t get to see him until over an hour into the film.  I suppose that adds power to the reveal, but more Bardem is always good.  He chewed up the scenery and it was exactly what the film needed. 

 

Bardem may have chewed on the scenery, but the scenery itself made the film absolutely beautiful.  This is easily the most impressively cinematic Bond film.  Director Sam Mendes and Director of Photography Roger Deakins present one amazing visual after another.  The locales, like Shanghai, are naturally exotic and beautiful, but they add to it using a vast array of colors and it is shot in a way so that it can be appreciated.  I also liked how a lot of the film is shot behind Bond, so we get to enter most of these locations right along with him.

 

Skyfall was a long time coming, and it was certainly worth the wait.  Those let down with the last effort, as I was, will be pleased.  Those who are upset with the direction the series had taken in general might not be completely happy, but they definitely have less to complain about with this one.  I consider Casino Royale to be one of the best Bond films ever made, and now Skyfall is part of that discussion.  Let’s just hope they don’t need to restart it again anytime soon.      

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I have to admit that I loved seeing James Bond get all Home Alone when they all started booby-trapping the old house.  Bonus points go to M for her awesome lightbulb shotgun rounds.

I thought this was a very good send off for Judi Dench.  I must admit that it felt kind of weird that she remained as M, even though Bond changed.  (I know it's happened like this before, but this is first time I witnessed the change as the films were released.)  Looking forward to seeing Craig report to Fiennes for at least two more films.

It's good to finally have a Moneypenny and a Q. 

How cool would it have been if Pierce Brosnan had been Bardem's character.  A former agent cast aside, back with a vendetta against M.  That would have been amazing.  It would also acknowledge that James Bond is simply a code name just as M is.  Still, I was happy with Bardem's performance.