Sunday, June 29, 2008

Wanted (2008)


Wanted. Directed by Timur Bekmambetov. Written by Michael Brandt & Derek Haas. Release Date: June 27, 2008. Country of Production: United States. Key Cast: James McAvoy (Wesley Gibson), Morgan Freeman (Sloan), Angelina Jolie (Fox).

Enter the wild world of curving bullets and super-assassins in this stylish action-packed thriller.  This movie is based on a comics mini-series by Mark Millar and J. G. Jones, and tough I never read it, after watching this, I really want to.  This movie has everything that a movie about assassins should have:  high intensity action, deception, betrayal, all tempered with a healthy dose of sexiness that Miss (Mrs.?) Jolie easily carries almost entirely on her own shoulders.

Apparently the one thing that the comic creators (according to wikipedia) would have liked to see in the film that did not come through for them was an element of super-heroes and super-villains, in the traditional costumed sense of the terms.  However, also according to wikipedia, director Bekmambetov said that he wanted this film to be an opposition to the moral tale of Spider-Man in that this story involves a character whose humdrum existence is given new life when he discovers his own powers, but upon realizing his potential, he chooses a dark path instead.

Also, as you may have noticed in the coming attractions:  there's a train in this movie.  What is it about trains that is so filmic?  Actually, I kind of resent asking that question, because as a certain UF Professor can tell you:  everything about trains is filmic.  If you don't believe me, just watch Frankenheimer's The Train (1964) and write a paper on it.  Now, with the assistance of a few professors, I have been cultivating a theory about the filmic train for a while, and if you've read this far already, I ask that you continue to indulge for a couple more paragraphs:

Well, we'll begin with the tracks, because that's where the train starts, and accordingly that's where the film starts as well: with the reel.  Before it can be traversed by any audience, the narrative and the physical film itself must be laid down, and completed.  So, you can probably see where this is going, the audience's journey through a film is like the train's journey over a given length of track.  But the audience is not the train itself, it is merely the vessel, the projector, or the theater, if you will.

At first, my thinking was that the audience is most like a passenger sitting in the middle of one of the cars, watching as the scenery passes.  The passenger's view out of the window is perpendicular to the tracks, reminiscent of the way in which light is projected through each frame of the film in succession, and therefore as he watches out the window, he experiences his journey on length of track at a time.  I have recently changed my theory though, because one of the interesting things about film  is that there is no simultaneity.  In reality, you are viewing events that appear to be happening before you, but that have already happened, creating a strange temporal displacement for the audience.  You are caught up in a story that already has a determined ending (which further complicates Wanted's themes of fate and destiny, but I digress).  In this way, I conjecture that the audience is more like a passenger standing on the back of the caboose, watching as the track disappears behind him.  He can see the scenic and natural elements that the train has passed, but not until the train has already passed them, and with this perspective, does not know when the train will arrive until he gets there.

Also, for more trains and fantastically thrilling action, I would recommend Bekmambetov's Nochnoy dozor (a.k.a. Night Watch) from 2004.  It's got vampires and stuff.

-PT

2 comments:

Sally Salt said...

Alright...here we go.

Tato--
I wish I could keep up the train dialog, but I'll admit I watched the film with the idea that the trains served as something else to flip over/through. So I don't believe I can add anything to your discussion. My apologies.

I can, however, obsess more about vigilantism.

This film, with its mystical looms, plays an incredibly unique card in the "who decides who dies" hero game. We both questioned the judgment of the vigilante's moral compass leading the city/country/world in the "right direction." In this movie, though, there is no moral compass involved in the decision making. It comes from a binary-weaving loom. So the heroes only jobs are to act out these orders.

In fact, the villain of the movie was the man who took over for fate, and took charge of his own destiny.

Something to think about...

There were several elements of the film which I enjoyed. McAvoy had fantastic facial expressions. I got over the ridiculousness of the curving bullet (except for the circle bullet of death…). It was absolutely hilarious that about 800 innocent people die in the process of carrying out the loom’s will (how many people were in that train?!).

(Caution: I’m going to bitch a little here.)
I had to resist the urge to complain throughout this entire movie about the action sequences. I can't stand movies that are set in the real world and totally ignore physics...as in, don't even acknowledge that there are limitations to the human body. Even if there are superheroes, I expect the writers to somehow try to explain why the rules of physics don't apply to the heroes.

James McAvoy’s accent was the worst thing I’ve ever heard. It was so “American,” it felt almost mocking (which would have been terribly funny, but I’m positive that was not the case).

One more bitch note (so sorry)…
Any time anyone jumped through glass, they looked stupid.

AND did anyone else note that Wesley (excuse my language) motherfucking sky boarded into the water using his dead father's body?!

All of that said, I am dying to read the graphic novel. The dialog--that is, I hope that this is the authors and not so much the screenwriters--is fantastic...very quick and clever. I love the anarcho-punk DIY message. The action sequences would look stunning in ink. There is also a sexual edge to it that is not original, but still appealing. Most of all, I am crazy about the idea of a superhero who confuses his superpower to be panic attacks. I was floored by that.

In closing, I've never seen a movie that made me want to read a comic more. I've also never seen an action movie that tried to take itself seriously and still manage to get the audience laughing at the car flip scenes.

My favorite quote of all--from a satisfied viewer:
"I came to see Angelina Jolie's ass, and I stayed for the shooting....

It was beast."

Beast indeed.

-Sally Salt

Plato Tato said...

Since my last post, I got an opportunity to see this movie again, and I also coincidentally stumbled upon a TPB version of the comics which compiled all 6 chapters of the WANTED story into one cohesive volume (complete with fan art from some big names in the comic book game).

The books take the elements of the movie to a whole new level that, for whatever reason, was toned down for the film. In the comics, they are actually super villains, in the comic-est sense of the word, and much like Moore's Watchmen, there are some very clear references to superheroes which dominate the various comic book 'verses. The whole weaver story was fabricated for the film, and I guess it does have some filmic qualities, but I must say that once seeing J.G. Jones's beautiful renderings of the comics, and the much more diverse (and in my opinion, much more sinister) cast of villains, I was sorry that they did not translate to the screen.

The movie does retain its punkish-Fight Club-esque message from the comics, but the books go into much more detail about the deplorable condition of the world and how it came to be, rather than imagining Gibson as a victim of contemporary society.

Also, the super villain lifestyle is much more glamorized and bureaucratic than it was depicted in the movie.

I guess the train thing kind of does tie in with the loom metaphor, because of what I mentioned about the inherent fatalism of film. In a comic, where the reader is given the guidelines to traverse the narrative, he is also granted the choice whether or not to follow these guidelines. Many times after reading the first panel of a page, I am overcome with my anticipation and steal a glance at the last one, just to tempt myself to read the dialogue. Also, the layout of the page itself becomes a narrative device, whereas in a film/movie, the audience is subjected to the story one frame at a time at a predestined pace, much like being strapped in for a roller coaster ride. Inasmuch as the film deals with the elements of fate and destiny, so do the comics delve into the themes of personal responsibility, self-assured-ness, and forging your own path.

I would highly recommend the comics if you're into that sort of thing. There are some things that the books can do that the movie didn't, merely because WANTED functions to a large degree as a meta-comic, and the movie lacked the same element of reflexivity.

I'll loan it to you next time I see you, Sally.

-PT