In the movie Heat, the character of Neil McCauley is one of the main storylines throughout the film. McCauley has a saying about not keeping attachments that can’t be dropped in 30 seconds. As the film, progresses McCauley and his friends are put under more and more pressure until the situation boils over leading to McCauley’s attempt to escape. As he tries to leave, he decides to go after the traitor. When he is leaving, he is spotted by Hanna, the police officer, which leads to his dilemma; should he attempt to flee with his girlfriend or run by himself? McCauley and Eady are close, but McCauley proves that he is incapable of changing as he runs from Hanna on his own, leaving Eady heartbroken. Although this was our first movie of Michael Mann’s, I suspect that this will be a common theme throughout: People are incapable of change.
I certainly agree with Chris' observation on the incapability of change in many of the characters in a Michael Mann film. Similarly these characters (especially McCauley) are loners and have very little time for family/personal relationships because they are a hinderance to their pursuit of success and dedication to their job; McCauley's is interestingly planning heists and robberies. On another note, I find it very fascinating that Mann begins his film with very restricted narration and ambiguity. He introduces all of McCauley's gang of robbers individually and with very little dialogue. Neil enters a hospital very hurriedly and suddenly commandeers an ambulance. The audience is then faced with a robbery and subsequently a triple homicide. The rest of the film's nearly 3 hours deal with officer Hanna's investigation on these men, and the pace is more deliberate. However, Mann does incorporate intensive action scenes to provide the audience with the thrills that they anticipate.
I find it interesting, Young, that you commented on McCauley's phrase, but you did not elaborate on it's significance in and of itself. I do agree that McCauley is a hard man who doesn't seem to change easily, but as to this being a reacurring theme, i doubt it. Of course, i cannot say truth as to it's validity as i have not seen any other Mann films, but reacurring, i don't think so. His choice to leave her though with hardly a second thought shows his cruel-hearted disregard for others though, and making it a woman whom he is leaving just emphasizes this point. To this potential theme i would stake a greater chance of reacurring - the total disregard for others' feelings as a characteristic present in the villain of the film.
The relationship between McCauley and Hanna is very unusual. Here we have both a highly equipped heist criminal and a skilled LAPD lieutenant who both play a game of cat and mouse throughout the film. I found it very surprising that the pair spent an evening at a restaurant together when either one could end the other's life instantaneously. Director, Mann maintains a typical exchange between characters at medium shots and provides diagetic sound for the 5 minute scene. The two share their dreams and relationships, but by the end come to an understanding that they will not hesitate to murder each other if provoked. Similarly, the final scene at LAX also stands out because by the end of the film one of them must win. As they chase each other around the runway, the audience is uncertain, however Hanna succeeds after detecting McCauley's shadow. Mann concludes "Heat" with the two men holding hands and McCauley saying "I will never go back." You can tell that they respect each other, and that McCauley perhaps has realized that his choices in life were not good ones.
The restaurant scene that Chris talked about was vital to the development of the film. Mann throws the two men, McCauley and Hanna, into tricky situation as they are on opposing sides of the conflict. As Chris said, the characters make a connection due to their love of their work. This scene forces the audience to choose between Hanna and McCauley whether you prefer the LADP agent or the heist criminal greatly effects how you react to the closing sequence. During the final scene, Mann uses shadows and multiple angles to create a suspenseful situation during which we are unsure which “hero” will prevail. In the end, Hanna wins as the two men are drawn together in the heat of battle.
I find your thoughts to be very insightful CS, as you adressed the relationship between the two very well to within a shadow of a doubt, but i don't see how you are suprised by their confrontation in the coffee shop. Sure, either one could have gone at the other's neck without hesitation, but they are very gentlemanly in their practice. They both do respect eachother way too much to sneak such a dirty trick under the table, Not to mention Hanna is a cop, so he would rather play by the rules than murder someone in cold blood and risk prosecution. McCauley i'm sure doesn't want to risk it either, as he would subject himself to attack from anyone in the coffee shop if he were to expose himself as a murderer. I do find it interesting that they share eachother's lives so freely with the other, it shows they truely and genuinely feel the other knows the matter is personal, and the other would not stoop so low as to bring family into the conflict. A scene Mann Crafted with Man Morals in mind, a throw-back dispute solved the old fashion way, between men, in a 1 on 1 duel to be had on an unknown day of fate, and that's just what ends up hapening.
So from the film we watched today, I would like to analyse the main character, Jeffrey Wigand. It's clear that he is willing to do whatever it takes to achieve the best for his family, as his choice of being a research chemist for a tabaco company is less than a pleasing public image. But what DOESN'T make sense to me is why he would then throw all of that away in the end just to leak some sensitive information to the public. He ruined his life by doing so, when he could have 'done what's best for his family' - and avoided devorce - just by simply shutting up. So an obvious slight change of character takes place here and what interests me is the reason why he changed his game plan. My thought is that his conscience got the best of him, and he felt that revealing this health related information to the public would help redeem him for his choice to become a tabaco research chemist. This idea is supported also by his new career, as a high school teacher is quite the opposite of his old career in terms of image and money. The difference between these two careers could also be symbolic of his change of character as described earlier - so as you can see, it all ties up quite nicely.
Blair is right when he says Wigand changed character however Wigand was affected by more than his conscious. He was motivated and harassed by Lowell Bergman to provide his information to CBS 60 minutes. Bergman wanted Wigand to go public so he put him in a court of law to speak the truth. He was threatened by big tobacco. Wigand was constantly followed by unknown men and sometimes received death notes. Wigand’s motivations change throughout the film leading him to do the right thing even though it may have been harder (or perhaps easier) to stay silent and protect his family. Eventually his wife chooses to divorce him because she cannot handle the pressure and torment of the situation. Originally Wigand was going to honor his contract, but with the progression of the film he is more likely to divulge his secrets due to the overwhelming pressures that surround him. He does so in the court trial and on camera for 60 minutes perhaps ruining his life. Although Bergman tells Wigand that in the end its only Wigand’s choice, I believe that this is a false statement and that Bergman knew it from the moment he started pressuring Wigand for the truth.
I must agree with the both of you surrounding Wigand's motivations. There really isn't much more to contribute. Pearson you were quite right in saying that his conscience was what changed his character throughout the film, however I am totally defending his choices. Even though divulging this information on 60 Minutes destroyed his life and reputation upon first glance, the repercussions are positive in that he does not need to defend big tobbaco's lies any longer; he never truly took pride his career, otherwise he would not have spoken up. And if we're considering the ramifications on society--we're now more informed about the dangers of nicotine and more lives are saved...someone had to do it and Wigand stepped up to the plate. Sure, Bergmann's motives were a little forceful; journalists are always quite aggressive with their stories. I'm glad that he quit his job at CBS as evidenced by the final shot of him leaving the building. One question that I have surrounds the death threats that Wigand received in the first third of the film. They were never really elaborated and just served as a prompt for him to testify on television and means for distress within his family (as Young alluded to). Who would they be from? Did Bergmann have anything to do with it?
Well, Sjolander, the only person who was against Wiggand's testimonry was the tabaco companies - and rightly so - so it would seem logical that they came from his previous boss. Now, in terms of reality versus this documentary, i'm sure this was fictionalized to add dramatic effect - as if the tabaco companies had actually threatened him, they probably would not have gotten away with it. Which brings me back to the documentary. Why was the computer removed from his house? it seems kind of counter-productive towards Wiggand's case to remove his coputer, which is why i believe the men who came to interview him were actually paid off by the tabaco company to do what they did - remove the evidence and plant a seed of doubt (accusing him of being crazy and placing the 9mm in his mailbox himself. Once again - i think this part was fictionalized for dramatic effect.
To avoid more plot and theme discussion, but remaining on the topic of the character of Wigand, I find Michael Mann's development of his character very unique. As the film progresses, the audience can tell that Wigand is starting to become more and more paranoid. He begins to receive death threats and is followed by strangers from the big tobacco companies. The scene at the driving range sticks out because the darkness coupled with a blue/green hue filter renders it very spooky and uncomfortable. While Wigand hits balls (with intensified volume), he is accompanied by another man several stations to his left and following several more strokes he begins to lose patience and confronts the stranger. Another pivotal scene that strays from the typical storyline is the surrealistic dream sequence. As the interior of the room fades to a pleasant backyard, Wigand imagines his family life without the pressures of this investigation. He is in a sense remorseful of his actions and misses his wife and children. I find it interesting how different our previous film "Heat" is from "The Insider." There is far less action, and instead more character development, but the length of the film is quite consistent at 2 1/2 hours.
Chris Sjolander P.S. I guess I have two blog accounts, one for my AOL email address and one for my Gmail, so that's why my last name only appears in the title of one.
During the course of the film there is an underlying conflict of integrity versus greed. The first case of this is when Wigand vocalizes his displeasure at big tobacco causing him to lose his big-time job. Big tobacco realizes the threat Wigand poses and virtually shuts his life down. Wigand is harassed and blackmailed by big tobacco because if their secrets of cigarettes would get out, then they could lose sales. On the other hand, there is conflict within CBS itself due to the possibility of a lawsuit. CBS was afraid of the showing the unedited version of Wigand’s interview because CBS could have been held accountable. CBS made a financial choice not to originally show the unedited version, but in the end they made the right call by showing the real clip, and with that decision they accomplished their true job of bringing the news to the public.
The film Collateral is in my humble opinion, the best of the three we watched, and they are quite easily comparable, as each of them contain a similar conflict of two men, one good and the other 'bad', who try to outsmart the other. The biggest difference between this movie and the other two is the ties the two men have. in Collateral, Max does not wish to drive Kevin around town, but he is forced to by the threat of losing his mother, and Kevin does not wish to kill Max because he needs a driver, and someone to take the blame in the end after all of the crimes have been commited. I would like to analyse Kevin and Max in more depth. This movie is really about a battle between two intelectuals trying to outwit the other. But the similarities stop there. Kevin is rich, while Max is poor. Kevin believes the philosophy that one death is of no significance at all, while Max is distrought from the moment he learns of Kevin's proffesion, And this is bassically what the entire movie is about - two moral conscious beliefs, and which one is more sensible. (Of course killing is wrong, but this film is not about what is right or wrong, but rather what is societally acceptable and best for the community - Darwinism at it's finest). Kevin presents some significant arguments - a dead man in a subway and no one notices for a week; Rwanda genocide. But perhaps my favorite part of the entire film is the conversation that Max and Kevin hold in the cab just before they crash. Kevin is asking Max why he's still driving a cab, after 12 years, and why he hasn't bothered to call that girl he's got the number of, and silence ensues for a minute. And then Max retorts with the same argument that Kevin gives him, and fiishes with "You know what? You're right, it doesn't matter, so fix it."
To begin with, Mr. Pearson, I would like to correct your error in character name "Kevin" which is actually "Vincent." Your comparisons of the two protagonists is quite insightful; the fact that they converse about careers, aspirations, and death renders it difficult to completely label "Collateral" one specific genre. It is most obviously an action thriller; a hostage thriller in particular. However, it does weave a little psychology in as well because the two gentlemen possess such contrasting views on society and the value of life. As an audience member, we really identify with Max's character because he is just an ordinary man (a "wrong man" if we are to salute sir Alfred Hitchcock) who must suddenly chauffeur a hit man around town.
Michael Mann abandons historical/biographical films like "The Insider" and returns to his roots in action like his most famous film "Heat." I did a little research on "Collateral" and found that Mann filmed this movie with high definition digital video. You can tell that the quality of film is much more stylized now because he has access to more sophisticated equipment. His crane shots of the streets of Los Angeles and the dimly lit alleyways really create an urban feel. Overall, I would like to second that this was the best Michael Mann film of the three because it was simple yet very entertaining...and it wasn't nearly 3 hours long.
I believe that Blair’s comment is very insightful however I would like to address the issue of the ironic ending which Blair did mention. At some point during the story Vincent comments on the dead man that no one notices on the subway. Vincent is again relating his feelings that no single person is a loss to society. In Vincent’s mind, life will always continue to go on without the dead. This is a possible reason for his job as he is a contract killer. Vincent’s inability to recognize the value of a single life leads him to chase Max and Annie onto a train where in the shootout, Max, the ordinary man, becomes the victory. On the other hand, Max believes in the value of life as he risks his own to protect Annie. The shootout between Max and Vincent is representative of the battle between ideals (based off Blair’s ideas). Once Max shoots Vincent, Vincent is reduced to an insignificant dying man. He withers and becomes just like the dead man he describes as he continued to travel on the train. In some way Vincent is somewhat right because even though the hero has won the battle, the ideals of Vincent won the war.
As the movie progresses, Max becomes more and more troubled by Vincent’s actions. Max has seen murder and been forced into a difficult situation by Vincent. When Max and Vincent visit Max’s mother, Max snaps. He runs off with Vincent’s suitcase and eventually disposes of the important information. Vincent is then forced to have Max retrieve the information for some criminals so that he can “finish the job”. To do so Max is required to switch character. He enters the underworld of violence and greed where he must convince the criminals that he is Vincent so that he can get the information. At first this Max is hesitant. He knows he is doing a poor job of imitating a hit man. Then miraculously, Max takes off his glasses. He becomes Vincent. Max experiences the world through Vincent’s eyes; his thoughts are corrupted just like Vincent’s. This part is virtually the same conversation that Max had with Vincent except for Max is Vincent. This moment is significant because Mann shows that ordinary people put in extraordinary situations will go into survival mode and do what is necessary in order to live.
I think you are misinterpretting survival instincts with a reality check. Max IS vincent as far as anyone else is concerned. He isn't imitating Vincent, he's becoming Vincent, and it just took him that long to figure it out. Granted he was being backed into a corner and needed to say something intimidating to get out of there alive, but it was nothing extreme. If it were purely survival instincts, i believe he would not have been so forward as he was, for fear of stepping across a line - no, he was trying to play the part so well, that Vincent's employers would start to dislike - even fear him (him being Vincent). Max even went so far as to take a bite at Vincent by decreasing his pay for the job. A cool tactic that I enjoyed a lot.
I don't really know what more there is to say that hasn't been mentioned already. We've already discussed the morals between Max and Vincent as well as the means of survival (or Max's journey to the criminal underworld). In addition to thematic and character driven items I feel we should discuss more cinematic technique. There are a couple moments in particular where I feel that Mann frames the two characters where they Max carries more power over his enemy. The first situation is the encounter on the bridge over the highway after Max throws the suitcase onto the road. They are separated by about 10 yards from each other both men appear equal because Vincent does not have his money and therefore less control while Max is free to run if he chooses to. The other situation is the final shootout. As Young mentioned, Vincent is left on the subway just as he had discussed earlier about the significance of one death among many. When Vincent realizes that he is out of bullets, and drops the magazine on the ground, the footage goes into slow mo momentarily and he then gradually takes a seat. Max has the opportunity to end his life right then, but he chooses to engage in Vincent's final words before he dies. Mann's final shot of the subway leaving the station is a great capper because Max has finally escaped and also has a woman--a good connection to the opening conversation the couple had in the taxi.
This is my seventh year teaching film, and ninth overall. I got my B.A. in journalism in 1998 from the University of Minnesota, then worked as a sports writer at The Star Tribune for awhile. I eventually went back to the U for my master's degree in English education, and started teaching in 2001.
I live in Minneapolis with Susan (wife, works at General Mills), Jack (son, born in August '08), and Gunnar (dog, a PBGV -- look it up).
20 comments:
In the movie Heat, the character of Neil McCauley is one of the main storylines throughout the film. McCauley has a saying about not keeping attachments that can’t be dropped in 30 seconds. As the film, progresses McCauley and his friends are put under more and more pressure until the situation boils over leading to McCauley’s attempt to escape. As he tries to leave, he decides to go after the traitor. When he is leaving, he is spotted by Hanna, the police officer, which leads to his dilemma; should he attempt to flee with his girlfriend or run by himself? McCauley and Eady are close, but McCauley proves that he is incapable of changing as he runs from Hanna on his own, leaving Eady heartbroken. Although this was our first movie of Michael Mann’s, I suspect that this will be a common theme throughout: People are incapable of change.
Chris Young
1st hour
Heat by Michael Mann
I certainly agree with Chris' observation on the incapability of change in many of the characters in a Michael Mann film. Similarly these characters (especially McCauley) are loners and have very little time for family/personal relationships because they are a hinderance to their pursuit of success and dedication to their job; McCauley's is interestingly planning heists and robberies. On another note, I find it very fascinating that Mann begins his film with very restricted narration and ambiguity. He introduces all of McCauley's gang of robbers individually and with very little dialogue. Neil enters a hospital very hurriedly and suddenly commandeers an ambulance. The audience is then faced with a robbery and subsequently a triple homicide. The rest of the film's nearly 3 hours deal with officer Hanna's investigation on these men, and the pace is more deliberate. However, Mann does incorporate intensive action scenes to provide the audience with the thrills that they anticipate.
Chris Sjolander
1st hour
I find it interesting, Young, that you commented on McCauley's phrase, but you did not elaborate on it's significance in and of itself. I do agree that McCauley is a hard man who doesn't seem to change easily, but as to this being a reacurring theme, i doubt it. Of course, i cannot say truth as to it's validity as i have not seen any other Mann films, but reacurring, i don't think so. His choice to leave her though with hardly a second thought shows his cruel-hearted disregard for others though, and making it a woman whom he is leaving just emphasizes this point. To this potential theme i would stake a greater chance of reacurring - the total disregard for others' feelings as a characteristic present in the villain of the film.
Blair P. 1st hour
Heat
The relationship between McCauley and Hanna is very unusual. Here we have both a highly equipped heist criminal and a skilled LAPD lieutenant who both play a game of cat and mouse throughout the film. I found it very surprising that the pair spent an evening at a restaurant together when either one could end the other's life instantaneously. Director, Mann maintains a typical exchange between characters at medium shots and provides diagetic sound for the 5 minute scene. The two share their dreams and relationships, but by the end come to an understanding that they will not hesitate to murder each other if provoked. Similarly, the final scene at LAX also stands out because by the end of the film one of them must win. As they chase each other around the runway, the audience is uncertain, however Hanna succeeds after detecting McCauley's shadow. Mann concludes "Heat" with the two men holding hands and McCauley saying "I will never go back." You can tell that they respect each other, and that McCauley perhaps has realized that his choices in life were not good ones.
The restaurant scene that Chris talked about was vital to the development of the film. Mann throws the two men, McCauley and Hanna, into tricky situation as they are on opposing sides of the conflict. As Chris said, the characters make a connection due to their love of their work. This scene forces the audience to choose between Hanna and McCauley whether you prefer the LADP agent or the heist criminal greatly effects how you react to the closing sequence. During the final scene, Mann uses shadows and multiple angles to create a suspenseful situation during which we are unsure which “hero” will prevail. In the end, Hanna wins as the two men are drawn together in the heat of battle.
I find your thoughts to be very insightful CS, as you adressed the relationship between the two very well to within a shadow of a doubt, but i don't see how you are suprised by their confrontation in the coffee shop. Sure, either one could have gone at the other's neck without hesitation, but they are very gentlemanly in their practice. They both do respect eachother way too much to sneak such a dirty trick under the table, Not to mention Hanna is a cop, so he would rather play by the rules than murder someone in cold blood and risk prosecution. McCauley i'm sure doesn't want to risk it either, as he would subject himself to attack from anyone in the coffee shop if he were to expose himself as a murderer. I do find it interesting that they share eachother's lives so freely with the other, it shows they truely and genuinely feel the other knows the matter is personal, and the other would not stoop so low as to bring family into the conflict. A scene Mann Crafted with Man Morals in mind, a throw-back dispute solved the old fashion way, between men, in a 1 on 1 duel to be had on an unknown day of fate, and that's just what ends up hapening.
Blair P. 1st hour
Heat
So from the film we watched today, I would like to analyse the main character, Jeffrey Wigand. It's clear that he is willing to do whatever it takes to achieve the best for his family, as his choice of being a research chemist for a tabaco company is less than a pleasing public image. But what DOESN'T make sense to me is why he would then throw all of that away in the end just to leak some sensitive information to the public. He ruined his life by doing so, when he could have 'done what's best for his family' - and avoided devorce - just by simply shutting up. So an obvious slight change of character takes place here and what interests me is the reason why he changed his game plan. My thought is that his conscience got the best of him, and he felt that revealing this health related information to the public would help redeem him for his choice to become a tabaco research chemist. This idea is supported also by his new career, as a high school teacher is quite the opposite of his old career in terms of image and money. The difference between these two careers could also be symbolic of his change of character as described earlier - so as you can see, it all ties up quite nicely.
Blair P. 1st hour
The Insider
Blair is right when he says Wigand changed character however Wigand was affected by more than his conscious. He was motivated and harassed by Lowell Bergman to provide his information to CBS 60 minutes. Bergman wanted Wigand to go public so he put him in a court of law to speak the truth. He was threatened by big tobacco. Wigand was constantly followed by unknown men and sometimes received death notes. Wigand’s motivations change throughout the film leading him to do the right thing even though it may have been harder (or perhaps easier) to stay silent and protect his family. Eventually his wife chooses to divorce him because she cannot handle the pressure and torment of the situation. Originally Wigand was going to honor his contract, but with the progression of the film he is more likely to divulge his secrets due to the overwhelming pressures that surround him. He does so in the court trial and on camera for 60 minutes perhaps ruining his life. Although Bergman tells Wigand that in the end its only Wigand’s choice, I believe that this is a false statement and that Bergman knew it from the moment he started pressuring Wigand for the truth.
I must agree with the both of you surrounding Wigand's motivations. There really isn't much more to contribute. Pearson you were quite right in saying that his conscience was what changed his character throughout the film, however I am totally defending his choices. Even though divulging this information on 60 Minutes destroyed his life and reputation upon first glance, the repercussions are positive in that he does not need to defend big tobbaco's lies any longer; he never truly took pride his career, otherwise he would not have spoken up. And if we're considering the ramifications on society--we're now more informed about the dangers of nicotine and more lives are saved...someone had to do it and Wigand stepped up to the plate. Sure, Bergmann's motives were a little forceful; journalists are always quite aggressive with their stories. I'm glad that he quit his job at CBS as evidenced by the final shot of him leaving the building. One question that I have surrounds the death threats that Wigand received in the first third of the film. They were never really elaborated and just served as a prompt for him to testify on television and means for distress within his family (as Young alluded to). Who would they be from? Did Bergmann have anything to do with it?
Chris Sjolander
Well, Sjolander, the only person who was against Wiggand's testimonry was the tabaco companies - and rightly so - so it would seem logical that they came from his previous boss. Now, in terms of reality versus this documentary, i'm sure this was fictionalized to add dramatic effect - as if the tabaco companies had actually threatened him, they probably would not have gotten away with it. Which brings me back to the documentary. Why was the computer removed from his house? it seems kind of counter-productive towards Wiggand's case to remove his coputer, which is why i believe the men who came to interview him were actually paid off by the tabaco company to do what they did - remove the evidence and plant a seed of doubt (accusing him of being crazy and placing the 9mm in his mailbox himself. Once again - i think this part was fictionalized for dramatic effect.
Blair P. 1st hour
The Insider
To avoid more plot and theme discussion, but remaining on the topic of the character of Wigand, I find Michael Mann's development of his character very unique. As the film progresses, the audience can tell that Wigand is starting to become more and more paranoid. He begins to receive death threats and is followed by strangers from the big tobacco companies. The scene at the driving range sticks out because the darkness coupled with a blue/green hue filter renders it very spooky and uncomfortable. While Wigand hits balls (with intensified volume), he is accompanied by another man several stations to his left and following several more strokes he begins to lose patience and confronts the stranger. Another pivotal scene that strays from the typical storyline is the surrealistic dream sequence. As the interior of the room fades to a pleasant backyard, Wigand imagines his family life without the pressures of this investigation. He is in a sense remorseful of his actions and misses his wife and children. I find it interesting how different our previous film "Heat" is from "The Insider." There is far less action, and instead more character development, but the length of the film is quite consistent at 2 1/2 hours.
Chris Sjolander
P.S. I guess I have two blog accounts, one for my AOL email address and one for my Gmail, so that's why my last name only appears in the title of one.
During the course of the film there is an underlying conflict of integrity versus greed. The first case of this is when Wigand vocalizes his displeasure at big tobacco causing him to lose his big-time job. Big tobacco realizes the threat Wigand poses and virtually shuts his life down. Wigand is harassed and blackmailed by big tobacco because if their secrets of cigarettes would get out, then they could lose sales. On the other hand, there is conflict within CBS itself due to the possibility of a lawsuit. CBS was afraid of the showing the unedited version of Wigand’s interview because CBS could have been held accountable. CBS made a financial choice not to originally show the unedited version, but in the end they made the right call by showing the real clip, and with that decision they accomplished their true job of bringing the news to the public.
Chris Young
1st hour
The Insider
The film Collateral is in my humble opinion, the best of the three we watched, and they are quite easily comparable, as each of them contain a similar conflict of two men, one good and the other 'bad', who try to outsmart the other. The biggest difference between this movie and the other two is the ties the two men have. in Collateral, Max does not wish to drive Kevin around town, but he is forced to by the threat of losing his mother, and Kevin does not wish to kill Max because he needs a driver, and someone to take the blame in the end after all of the crimes have been commited. I would like to analyse Kevin and Max in more depth. This movie is really about a battle between two intelectuals trying to outwit the other. But the similarities stop there. Kevin is rich, while Max is poor. Kevin believes the philosophy that one death is of no significance at all, while Max is distrought from the moment he learns of Kevin's proffesion, And this is bassically what the entire movie is about - two moral conscious beliefs, and which one is more sensible. (Of course killing is wrong, but this film is not about what is right or wrong, but rather what is societally acceptable and best for the community - Darwinism at it's finest). Kevin presents some significant arguments - a dead man in a subway and no one notices for a week; Rwanda genocide. But perhaps my favorite part of the entire film is the conversation that Max and Kevin hold in the cab just before they crash. Kevin is asking Max why he's still driving a cab, after 12 years, and why he hasn't bothered to call that girl he's got the number of, and silence ensues for a minute. And then Max retorts with the same argument that Kevin gives him, and fiishes with "You know what? You're right, it doesn't matter, so fix it."
Blair P. 1st hour
Collateral
To begin with, Mr. Pearson, I would like to correct your error in character name "Kevin" which is actually "Vincent." Your comparisons of the two protagonists is quite insightful; the fact that they converse about careers, aspirations, and death renders it difficult to completely label "Collateral" one specific genre. It is most obviously an action thriller; a hostage thriller in particular. However, it does weave a little psychology in as well because the two gentlemen possess such contrasting views on society and the value of life. As an audience member, we really identify with Max's character because he is just an ordinary man (a "wrong man" if we are to salute sir Alfred Hitchcock) who must suddenly chauffeur a hit man around town.
Michael Mann abandons historical/biographical films like "The Insider" and returns to his roots in action like his most famous film "Heat." I did a little research on "Collateral" and found that Mann filmed this movie with high definition digital video. You can tell that the quality of film is much more stylized now because he has access to more sophisticated equipment. His crane shots of the streets of Los Angeles and the dimly lit alleyways really create an urban feel. Overall, I would like to second that this was the best Michael Mann film of the three because it was simple yet very entertaining...and it wasn't nearly 3 hours long.
Chris Sjolander
1st hour
Collateral
I believe that Blair’s comment is very insightful however I would like to address the issue of the ironic ending which Blair did mention. At some point during the story Vincent comments on the dead man that no one notices on the subway. Vincent is again relating his feelings that no single person is a loss to society. In Vincent’s mind, life will always continue to go on without the dead. This is a possible reason for his job as he is a contract killer. Vincent’s inability to recognize the value of a single life leads him to chase Max and Annie onto a train where in the shootout, Max, the ordinary man, becomes the victory. On the other hand, Max believes in the value of life as he risks his own to protect Annie. The shootout between Max and Vincent is representative of the battle between ideals (based off Blair’s ideas). Once Max shoots Vincent, Vincent is reduced to an insignificant dying man. He withers and becomes just like the dead man he describes as he continued to travel on the train. In some way Vincent is somewhat right because even though the hero has won the battle, the ideals of Vincent won the war.
Chris Young
1st hour
Collateral
As the movie progresses, Max becomes more and more troubled by Vincent’s actions. Max has seen murder and been forced into a difficult situation by Vincent. When Max and Vincent visit Max’s mother, Max snaps. He runs off with Vincent’s suitcase and eventually disposes of the important information. Vincent is then forced to have Max retrieve the information for some criminals so that he can “finish the job”. To do so Max is required to switch character. He enters the underworld of violence and greed where he must convince the criminals that he is Vincent so that he can get the information. At first this Max is hesitant. He knows he is doing a poor job of imitating a hit man. Then miraculously, Max takes off his glasses. He becomes Vincent. Max experiences the world through Vincent’s eyes; his thoughts are corrupted just like Vincent’s. This part is virtually the same conversation that Max had with Vincent except for Max is Vincent. This moment is significant because Mann shows that ordinary people put in extraordinary situations will go into survival mode and do what is necessary in order to live.
Chris Young
1st hour
Collateral
I think you are misinterpretting survival instincts with a reality check. Max IS vincent as far as anyone else is concerned. He isn't imitating Vincent, he's becoming Vincent, and it just took him that long to figure it out. Granted he was being backed into a corner and needed to say something intimidating to get out of there alive, but it was nothing extreme. If it were purely survival instincts, i believe he would not have been so forward as he was, for fear of stepping across a line - no, he was trying to play the part so well, that Vincent's employers would start to dislike - even fear him (him being Vincent). Max even went so far as to take a bite at Vincent by decreasing his pay for the job. A cool tactic that I enjoyed a lot.
Blair P. 1st hour
Collateral
I don't really know what more there is to say that hasn't been mentioned already. We've already discussed the morals between Max and Vincent as well as the means of survival (or Max's journey to the criminal underworld). In addition to thematic and character driven items I feel we should discuss more cinematic technique. There are a couple moments in particular where I feel that Mann frames the two characters where they Max carries more power over his enemy. The first situation is the encounter on the bridge over the highway after Max throws the suitcase onto the road. They are separated by about 10 yards from each other both men appear equal because Vincent does not have his money and therefore less control while Max is free to run if he chooses to. The other situation is the final shootout. As Young mentioned, Vincent is left on the subway just as he had discussed earlier about the significance of one death among many. When Vincent realizes that he is out of bullets, and drops the magazine on the ground, the footage goes into slow mo momentarily and he then gradually takes a seat. Max has the opportunity to end his life right then, but he chooses to engage in Vincent's final words before he dies. Mann's final shot of the subway leaving the station is a great capper because Max has finally escaped and also has a woman--a good connection to the opening conversation the couple had in the taxi.
Chris Sjolander
1st hour
Collateral
Post a Comment