Miller's Crossing (1990)
Whats the rumpus? Yes, I think in comparison to other movies pertaining to the Prohibition-era crimes such as 'Once Upon A Time In America', Miller's Crossing is more close presentation of limited but important characters prevailing during that time. More than that, it is a story of wit and thrill in the daily lives of people. All these wise guys, smart guys, made-up guys, stand-up guys and everything seems to have started from this time-period only.
However, in my opinion there lies difference in presenting gangsters when it comes to the style of Joel Coen, Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino, for example. Where most of the directors use more and more dialogues to develop sequence of drama, it is Joel Coen who keeps someone quiet among the group. Someone who thinks and we don't know what is he or she thinking. That always adds to the thrill and suspense. And this is one style, which I think is similar to that of Francis Ford Coppola. So even at this day when we see 'No Country For Old Men', we do find such characters. On the contrary, Scorsese or Tarantino not only put dialogues but also communicate about the thought of the protagonist to the viewers. I won't go after Sergio Leone since he has made enough Western to make him rely upon not only dialogues but also a story in flash-back to back his characters silence.
Still, one of the most beautiful element about Miller's Crossing is it's music. I was completely mesmerized by the background score. And a whiff of the same music can be heard in 'Fargo', too. Good acting, splendid story development and marvelous drama. Strongly recommended. So, whats the rumpus?
My rating: 7.8/10
However, in my opinion there lies difference in presenting gangsters when it comes to the style of Joel Coen, Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino, for example. Where most of the directors use more and more dialogues to develop sequence of drama, it is Joel Coen who keeps someone quiet among the group. Someone who thinks and we don't know what is he or she thinking. That always adds to the thrill and suspense. And this is one style, which I think is similar to that of Francis Ford Coppola. So even at this day when we see 'No Country For Old Men', we do find such characters. On the contrary, Scorsese or Tarantino not only put dialogues but also communicate about the thought of the protagonist to the viewers. I won't go after Sergio Leone since he has made enough Western to make him rely upon not only dialogues but also a story in flash-back to back his characters silence.
Still, one of the most beautiful element about Miller's Crossing is it's music. I was completely mesmerized by the background score. And a whiff of the same music can be heard in 'Fargo', too. Good acting, splendid story development and marvelous drama. Strongly recommended. So, whats the rumpus?
My rating: 7.8/10
Labels: Carter Burwell, Coen, Drama, Gabriel Byrne, Gangster, Miller's Crossing, Prohibition-era
posted by Chandra Jayant at 3:44 AM
4 Comments:
Miller’s Crossing is another take on the gangster genre by the famous Coen brothers and the duo have done a pretty good job of it. The film is a prototype of Coen school of cinema - slow, gripping and powerful. The brothers have not tried to make an epic gangster film by any means, and neither do they pretend to. They have stuck to a narrow piece of storyline, more like a sub-plot of a bigger, grander gangster film, based in a neighborhood and revolving around a mere incident of mistrust and one-upmanship. More importantly, it’s a lesson for all those film-makers who try out too many things with one film.
There’re hardly any shortcomings in the screenplay or otherwise, though personally I feel the choice of Marcia Gay as Verna wasn’t a great one. I would have loved to see someone like Kate Basinger or Winona Ryder or even Virginia Madsen in the role of the up-market hooker pinning for the attention of Mob bosses. But in sum, Miller's Crossing is by far one of the most accomplished mob films to have come out of Hollywood of late. It is a film that would make Coppola proud.
I agree with all of your arguments minus the actress part. I think Virginia Madsen could have been the choice but for KateBasinger, well she doesn't know much of acting. And Winona was too young then, to portray the role of Verna. On the contrary, if you go over Coen Brother's movies, you'll find that their usual choice of actors remain out of glamor and fame. In fact, I think Hudsucker Proxy (1994) could be one movie by Coen's where they picked Paul Newman and Tim Robbins but again the actress was Jennifer Jason Leigh and not Jodie Foster. One of the arguments, I think remain behind such decisions is the portrayal of the story. You take off-the-main line actors and no viewer goes to theater expecting much. You pick not-so-common faces from stardom and the cinema-goers feel the story to be the part of their neighborhood.
At least, Coen Bros.' films reflect show, that is what I think.
I beg to differ. The point is, when you play a role of a hot ass hooker, specially when you are a bone of contention between two mobsters, who are otherwise best of friends, the first order of business is to have sex appeal and mouth watering good looks, qualities that are clearly missing on Marcia Gay's portfolio.
Kim Basinger, on the other hand did play a similar role in LA Confidential and got an Oscar for it too. And unlike Filmfare Awards, bad actresses don't get nominated for Oscar, let alone win it. As for Winona Ryder (she possibly wouldn't have qualified without a blonde wig) but she was at her peak in '98, considering she recently played mom in Startrek. The bottomline: you want to see a gorgeous hooker, irrespective of what cinema you are making. You can't have Uttam Kumar (hero of Amanush) play a role of successful model, just because you trying to make a serious film.
Winona Ryder was barely 19 when the movie was released in 1990 so she would have been younger when Coen Brother's started making the film. Now for Bassinger in LA Confidential, you know that the storyline revolved around Hollywood in which the actress was a part of the group of hookers who were turned into Hollywood Actress look-alike. So, despite that the film has one main actress, she ran for best supporting actress competing against Julianne Moore from 'Boogie Nights' which clearly indicates dearth of roles in supporting that year. Unfortunately, Bassinger has got only this movie in her bag of career spawning 30 plus years.
But even if we leave that, as you mentioned yourself that Miller's Crossing is the story of one small neighborhood and not the entire east or south coast and their hoodlums, so the choice of not-so-glamorous figure is justified. You see, even Kim Bassinger's character in LA Confidential is the one who ran away from her home in Buffalo to become actress in Hollywood. The small towns are left with common faces such as that of Marcia Gay. In fact, based on your comment you think why Kim Bassinger got the role in LA Confidential when Madonna and Sharon Stone would have qualified on a high ratings based upon their similar performances in Body of Evidence and Basic Instinct?
Post a Comment
<< Home