Home Artists Posts Import Register
The Offical Matrix Groupchat is online! >>CLICK HERE<<

Content

68/100

Guess I should note for the record that there are spoilers below for the ending of both this movie and Game of Thrones.

Second viewing, last seen I believe during my stint working at a video store (1990-91). Opening half hour or so, through Prosky's kingpin pitching his deal at the waterfront, is basically flawless: magnificent silent burglary sequence (which I'd love to see intercut with Drive's corresponding getaway setpiece), pungent tough-guy dialogue ("I am Joe The Boss of my own body, so what the fuck do I have to work for you for?"), casually breathtaking images (a reverse-angle match cut of Frank handing a danish to a fisherman literally made me gasp aloud), Tangerine Dream (enough said). Also loved the emphasis on criminals' studious, glamour-free efforts to maintain a credible front, from Frank's auto dealership and bar to the drab-looking office at which Atagglia ostensibly works. Really, the whole film is an offbeat amalgam of mythic and mundane, its heightened formal elements working in counterpoint to a plug-ugly grind. Thievin' scenes involve some cool planning, and unfold in fascinating detail, but the actual work that's done often looks indistinguishable from what you'd see on a construction site—same hard labor, just a much bigger payoff. Even the cops here are petty and small, uninterested in catching Frank but livid that he won't give them a cut. It's all arrestingly humdrum. 

However, I was less interested in watching Frank accumulate various attachments that he's (briefly) unwilling to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if he feels the heat around the corner. And the movie's nihilistic climax forcefully reminded me that I've always found Mann's macho-dude worldview fundamentally silly rather than powerfully romantic. "I must destroy everything I love and/or possess so that nobody can threaten to take it away from me" is akin to—guess when I wrote this, readers of the future!—Daenerys "liberating" King's Landing by burning its entire population to a crisp. Except it's even more unnecessary, since Frank then annihilates the threat anyway (via a slo-mo shootout set to a needle drop, which is not my favorite Mann-erism; I likewise dislike Will Graham crashing through the window in slo-mo to "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" at the end of Manhunter). He just wants to ensure that he never winds up in such a "compromised" position again. One might point out that immediately burning the money he receives for fencing diamonds will likewise ensure that neither it nor anything that he might buy with it can possibly be stolen from him. But, y'know, that'd be dumb. This self-defeating mindset bugs me in Heat, too, but at least Neil McCauley's solitary-man, zero-strings ethos isn't the movie's sole theme. Doesn't retroactively ruin Thief for me—there's plenty of terrific stuff independent of that—but now I remember why it was absent from my '81 top ten list. (It's actually now #10, but only because I need to revisit a bunch of titles from that year. Not sure how Gallipoli fell off, for example.)

Fun Trivia Corner: William L. Petersen makes his screen debut here as the bartender. Is there another instance of someone going from a bit part in a director's first feature to the lead role in his third feature? That's really quite remarkable. 

Files

Comments

Anonymous

Re; the trivia, that seems like something that *should* happen all the time - a bit-part actor really impresses a director and the director finds something meatier for them in the future, it just sounds logical - but you're right that I can't think of a time when it actually has happened.