100W: Deliverance

As a writer, it is a regular expectation to keep to a strict word count. Every time you pick up a magazine, articles can be a small 100-word write-up or a 1000-word review. My own notes for the many films seen are always over 100 words - so this is a new feature that will focus on reviewing films in a concise 100 words.

Deliverance (Dir. John Boorman/1972)

Deliverance is known for the "duel of the banjos" when we see a man-child compete with Ronny Cox. But the “crazy hicks” look at the city-guys suspiciously too – and this tension is central. Lewis (Burt Reynolds) is arrogant; Ed (Jon Voight) is innocent; Bobby (Ned Beatty) is the victim. Canoeing downstream, they meet local men who rape and hold them at gunpoint. They survive, but scars run deeper than skin. An influence on Mean Creek amongst others, Deliverance continues past the holiday itself too - and shows that you can’t erase memories, despite how much you try and bury them.

Enemy of the State (Tony Scott, 1998)

"It's more than a theory with me. I'm a former conspirer"

 

Introduction

Due to my recent viewing of Francis Ford Coppola's The Conversation, I considered a follow-up analysis of Enemy of the State. The more I thought about it, the more I was keen to watch it at the very least. The recent coverage regarding Julian Assange equally struck a chord - and I viewed in the evening at 7:30pm, only hours before director Tony Scott took his own life by jumping off the Vincent Thomas Bridge in Los Angeles. With this in mind, I would like to think that this discussion about Enemy of the State, one of Tony Scott's finest films, can serve as a tribute to a director who was so much more than, as the media seem to highlight, Ridley's filmmaker brother.

Three Decades after Nixon

Following my appreciation of The Conversation, it is important to bear in mind the context that I will discuss this film within. Indeed, it is widely regarded as a sequel-in-spirit to The Conversation. There is a wide range of correlations ('Brills' costume and hideout, a sequence between Robert and Rachel clearly imitates the conversation which Hackman was obsessed with in The Conversation, photo-image of Hackman, etc) and yet one glaring discrepency - Hackman is Harry Caul in The Conversation, whilst in Enemy of the State, he is revealed as Edward Lyle - with a codename of 'Brill'. I personally believe this is only because it determines the films as separate. They are both very different stories in narrative-form and, though I don't know the cost of studios giving permission to create 'sequels', I'm sure it is a cost which ultimately was not worth the money. We can see it is 'supposed' to be connected, but the clarification of the characters name is just a way the filmmakers can't get caught-out on copywright issues.

The truth is without question - my issues with The Conversation were specific to the time period. How can a film about surveillance, in the 70's, be relevant today. The angle screenwriter David Marconi goes for is showing how, if anything, suveillance is more scary, more intrusive - and always used by the government to their own ends. Ironically, The Conversation was successful because the public were suddenly aware - through the actions of Nixon - how surveillance was being used. Enemy of the State shows Thomas Reynolds (Jon Voight), a senior member of NSA, completely abuse the power he has been granted, by  incorrectly hunting down Lawyer Robert Clayton Dean (Will Smith). The Conversation always showed the 'bugger' professional in his small, crampt, office - somebody hidden away and, in Harry Caul's case, skilled in surveillance so much, mistakes would be rare. Enemy of the State has huge control rooms and high-paid executives running things ... and this power is dangerous and mistakes are inevitably made.

Controlled Chaos in the Control Room

I watched The Bourne Legacy, shortly before and it is fascinating to analyse the direction and editing when showing a control room. In Tony Gilroy's recent effort, it was merely cutting between one room and what was happening on the streets with Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner). Tony Scott manages to cut between, not only the sequence on the streets, but in addition to this, multiple control stations. One station is based at NSA, another in the back of a van and - to top it off - to add pace, Scott cuts away to satellites above the earth, birds-eye-view shots, CCTV footage and additional monitors that are recording the events. It is always exceptionally clear what is going on and the characters within the control room hold personality ("Wanna blend?") and our attention. Thematically, these sequences are so important too as it relays the reality of surveillance - and how it covers and tracks our every move. Enemy of the State is a masterpiece when it portrays these sequences - and Tony Gilroy clearly didn't do his homework because The Bourne Legacy seems to fail at simply cutting between the two places, often repeating the same directions (just in a slightly different manner).

Credability

I have kept a passing interest in the recent developments in the Julian Assange news story. It seems that Assange is concerned that, upon his arrest for a "rape and sexual assault" allegation from Sweden, he will then be extradited, from Sweden, to the US to face charges against him regarding his release of information via WikiLeaks.

 

In Enemy of the State, my favourite monologue from Reynolds is his reaction - and decision - to pursue Robert Clayton Dean (Will Smith). It reads as follows:

 

"I've seen killers walk free because the eyewitness was an alcoholic. I've seen sex offenders that couldn't be touched because the victim was a call girl. Credibility. It's the only currency that means anything on this kind of playing field."

 

Harry Caul, in The Conversation, continually questioned the morality of his actions. He was paranoid about the reaction of his clients. Will his surveillance be the leverage someone needs to justify murder? Enemy of the State openly questions morality - but rather than asking whether people should be moral, Enemy of the State assumes it is a given that people are immoral - or at least, everyone has demons in their closet. Thomas Reynold's uses Robert Clayton Dean's moments of weakness to wreck his credability. An affair, which Dean and his wife managed to overcome after "four years" of counselling is brought up again.

 

"I want to know about his parents. I want to know about his gambling problems, his urine samples, his porno rentals. I want to use every means possible to get what we need."

 

Everyone has their vices and, with surveillance tracking everyone and everything, it is easy enough to use that vice as leverage over another. With regard to Julian Assange, I question if the allegations held against him are to destroy his credability prior to holding him accountable for his actions under WikiLeaks. Considering we are talking about the nature - and power - of classified information, I don't think it is too far-a-stretch.

 

Relevance

 

This truly is Tony Scott's strongest film. On the one hand, it is easy to dub Top Gun as the most critically acclaimed and, with regard to the time-period, you may be right. There is a clear connection between the fast-editing, pace and attitude of Top Gun in comparison to the MTV music videos and sports-adverts that influenced cinema largely in the 1980's. In this respect, Top Gun was ground-breaking. But I believe Enemy of the State, in the canon of Tony Scott's films, stands taller. It remains relevant today and, as technology becomes more advanced, you can only worry yourself thinking about how far technology has come since the films release in 1998. (14 years ago now!)

 

So many elements make this film a perfect storm of flawless filmmaking. The supporting actors in Enemy of the State are possibly the strongest force to be reckoned with - and in a few cases, the most credible roles they have played. Jack Black, Barry Pepper, Jamie Kennedy, Seth Green, Lisa Bonet, Jason Lee, Gabriel Byrne, Philip Baker Hall, Tom Sizemore... the list goes on. Will Smith manages to show that he can hold a serious-drama whilst Gene Hackman and Jon Voight reach their usual heights. The orchestral - but electonic - Trevor Rabin and Harry Gergson-Williams score capturing a sense of classical, 'old' elements in a modern age. The electornic clicks, buzzes and effects almost interrupt the sweeping strings - in the same manner that this technology interrupts Dean's life. Chris Lebenzon's editing between such a broad range of sources whilst the moody Baltimore is captured so well by cinematographer Daniel Mindel. All of this under the watchful eye of a master: Tony Scott. The fact that it has a subtle connection to The Conversation, is the icing on the cake.

 

Midnight Cowboy (John Schlesinger, 1969)

"You know, in my own place, my name ain't Ratso. I mean, it just so happens that in my own place my name is Enrico Salvatore Rizzo"

Introduction

Back in the early days of the DVD, my younger brother and I watched a free-DVD which was crammed with trailers. It had a trailer for Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies ("sound the general alarm..."). It also had more Brosnan with a trailer for The Thomas Crown Affair too ("...and waltz straight out the front door"/"oh, thats good"). It also had a trailer for Midnight Cowboy. Clearly the free DVD was from MGM because that was the studio behind all these films, but as you can see by my quotations (and I didn't need to look them up ... and I could rattle off a few more...) I knew these trailers back to front - but alas, in the case of Midnight Cowboy, only a decade later have I managed to watch the film. And now I have watched it, it is possibly one of my favourite films...

The American Dream

The story revolves around young Joe Buck (Jon Voight). He decides to get out of his small-town community in Texas and make it big (in a male-prostitute kind-of way) in New York. Thats the basic set-up and, akin to Easy Rider of the same year, it shows how the idea of starting a-fresh and gaining a new perspective on the US is actually much more difficult, and much more corrupt, than it may appear. The entire opening shows Joe travelling by bus - he thinks back to his girlfriend and family at home and see a little hint at a horrendous rape comitted against Joe's girlfriend, (and we find out later against Joe himself too). This gritty realism is what puts this film head and shoulders above the rest as Joe's time in the Big Apple is not what he thought it would be, becoming more tragic as the film progresses. We see how 'prosperity and success' is not as easy to find as it might appear. You cannot just up-sticks and move out to the big city and expect everyone to simply pay you for sex - people want money from you and Joe finds this out the hard way. We see drugs, prostitution (heterosexual and homosexual), extreme poverty, disability and homelessness. We also see how society is reluctant to help this side of the urban city - instead we see see huge billboards claiming "everybody can eat at [insert diner name here]". The capitalist and consumer nature of the American dream has eaten up the morality and soul of the people.

Oscar Worthy Performances

The year Midnight Cowboy won Best Picture (the first X-rated film to win the award), both Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman were additionally nominated for Best Actor - losing out to John Wayne and his role in True Grit. Dustin Hoffman plays the disabled 'Ratso' - a name which he despises, clearly aware of the connotations and disgusting nature of the rat. Hoffman constantly berates Joe Buck demanding that he call him Rizzo or, at least in his own home, to be called Enrico. Ratso is disabled and a conman - the pickpocket and thief who takes advantage of Joe Buck when they first meet.

Jon Voights performance as Joe Buck is equally fascinating - naive and innocent, despite such tragedy in his home town, he aims to forget and move on. He is confident about his love-making 'skills' and, when down and out and desperate for money, even turns to male-prostitution himself. The clients, are of the time, and clearly have difficulty accepting who they are whilst Joe is simply trying to define himself - is he the cowboy? the New York gigolo? Schlesinger shows brilliant fluidity in showing the reality of the situation and juxtaposing this with cut-aways to what the characters want: a one-second shot of Joe Buck walking into a womans house disorientates you until it cuts back to Joe Buck watching the woman enter the house alone.

In one stand-out sequence, Ratso waits for Joe to build up the client-base for their male-escort business. Ratso see's himself on the beach with women surrounding him, Ratso serves up gourmet food and gambles with style and edge ... before we see the business fold in minutes as Joe Bucks forward-move in groping a womans ass backfires. We see how delusional the characters are - and how the American dream, in this way, does not exist.

Starting A-Fresh

The constant theme that repeats itself throughout the film is the idea of starting again. Joe Buck, following the trauma in Texas, hopes to start again. Ratso, continually aims to start again by being called Enrico - and desperately hoping to get to Florida and start again. In the huge space and land of the free, you can start again. The question is whether it is too late. On the surface, the story appears to be about Joe Buck - but as the film closes you realise it is Ratso who we need to think about. He is who has been let down - constantly involved in the recurring nature of poverty - a father who shined shoes so much he damaged his back, a resentment towards those with money and opportunity - as he has never had usch freedom and choice. Even Joe Buck has more opportunity than he. Ratso feels he is the lowest of the low - and no one will change that, as even Joe puts him in his place multiple times by continuing to refer to him as Ratso. He is 'beneath' everyone and that will not change. It is only in the final act that Joe Buck puts his selfish, business-mind to the side and thinks about Ratso. He does 'what he needs to do' to ensure that Ratso has his opportunity to realise his dream.

I think it is "hope" that we are discussing. Ratso never gives up hope about his Florida dream - but it seems that society has given up on Ratso. The quote from the film "I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!" seems, on the one hand tongue-in-cheek as it is a character who physically has difficulty walking, but then has the subtext that, as he is part of the underbelly of NYC, he is not seen or considered. He is ignored and not helped. The health service requires money - which he does not have.

I could go on - the incredible music by John Barry with the unforgettable 'Everbody'sTalkin' by Harry Nilsson. The fact that Dustin Hoffman - fresh from starring in The Graduate - hails from LA but is playing a native New Yorker so perfectly. In fact, the newcomer Jon Voight, a native New Yorker is playing a Texan! So many facets of this film make it even stronger and I am well aware that, over the next few years, the more I watch the film, the better it will get.