What always confuses me in Dick Tracy (1990)

Fair warning: this post contains spoilers about the movie. 

I recently re-watched this movie for maybe the 10th time. I really love watching it; it's one of the coolest looking movies ever. Every scene is made up to look like a comic strip and everything visually about it is incredible. I first saw it when I was 14 years old in the theaters when it came out and was impressed by it so much I probably rented the VHS and DVD copies 2 or 3 more times, and later bought the DVD and then upgraded to blu ray where the picture quality looks fantastic. It's also a good movie to watch near or around New Year's Eve since the big climax of the film takes place on New Year' Eve.

If you've seen the movie you know it contains numerous storylines, including the orphan "The Kid" who wants to be on the police force, Tracy's relationship with his girlfriend, the new crime lord of the city (Al Pacino) and the corrupt district attorney (Dick Van Dyke) - a part that is too small; I think it could have been larger. 

Another subplot involves the rival crime lord "The Blank" - these sequences always confuse me when I think about them. At first, the Blank wants to obtain a percent of Big Boy's profits in exchange for immunity, but then the Blank changes his tune and wants to frame both Tracy and Big Boy. Alot of these details went over my head when I was 14 years old and to this day I still have trouble following The Blank's part of the story as it is told in the movie. 

If you've seen the movie, you know that Madonna/Breathless is revealed to be The Blank. 

But every time I rewatch the movie with that knowledge, the subplot is still puzzling.

This is either brilliance on the part of the screenwriters and director Warren Beatty.....or it's choppy editing that leaves out some details. I don't know which. 

The movie as it plays out gives the viewer the impression that The Blank is a mysterious rival villain who wants control over Big Boy and his criminal empire, when in reality The Blank is Breathless' way of protecting herself.....or maybe becoming a criminal crime kingpin of her own.  In my opinion I think the film should have revealed Madonna to be the Blank much earlier in the film. For example, show a scene of her putting on the mask, and dressing up. I think that would make the film much more interesting and less confusing. The first time we see the Blank, the Blank wants 10 percent of Big Boy's profits. Ok I think I follow the motive there - Breathless hates Big Boy and that is made clear. So why not give Breathless' character some extra weight--make her true identity known to the viewer, but not to Big Boy and Tracy. 

As the movie plays out, The Blank promised that Big Boy would be off the hook as a suspect in anything that would happen to Tracy if BigBoy makes the deal. But he doesn't make the deal. So what was The Blank planning to do with the money? Leave town? And what was Breathless planning to do if she successfully seduced Tracy? Testify and/or let Tracy in on the Blanks's scheme?  

Once Breathless/the Blank is rejected by Tracy, I can see why she wants both of them out of the way. And with the money she's made as the Blank, she could leave town. That would be one way to explain it.  So here's what ends up happening - The Blank frames Big Boy by kidnapping Tracy's girlfriend and placing her in the attic of the club, making it look like he kidnapped her. And she frames Tracy by killing the District Attorney and making it look like Tracy did it, but also making it look like Big Boy framed Tracy. If it worked, she would take the money and run? It's a brilliant scheme, but it was really confusing to pick up on the first watch.

What do you think? Is this how you understand The Blank? 

Seeing The Godfather (1972) for the first time on the big screen

My local AMC theater was showing a 50th anniversary screening of The Godfather; I had never need it, believe it or not - only parts of it. 

First of all -- I wish there were an intermission! Movies that are 3 hours should always have an intermission! It used to be a standard thing in the 1950s and 1960s; what happened in the 70s? Sigh. 

But, the movie was good, and emphasizes "family loyalty" in organized crime family. Al Pacino never wanted to be in the family business, but he is drawn in to protect his father at the hospital. His first murder at the restaurant is very suspenseful and dark. It 'feels like this character is being born' says Deep Focus Lens in the video review (see below). 

I need to see Part II and Part III to fully experience the full Saga. I remember when Part III came out but just wasn't interested in it or Part II enough. What bothers me in the film is the racism of the characters; several uses of racial slurs are used and makes these characters very unsympathetic to me. 

But Al Pacino's character is really the focus of the saga. See Siskel and Ebert's review below in honor of the 25th Anniversary. Siskel says the sequence where Al Pacino hides out in Sicily is something that was never seen in a mob film before. I liked this sequence and I think it is my favorite in the film. 

Vlog review of The Godfather by Deep Focus Lens which covers earlier gangster films and how they compare with this film, as well as how it inspires later Italian gangster films like The Sopranos later on.

The trailer for the 50th anniversary show is really cool.

Siskel and Ebert review (1990s)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) Spoiler warning

Of the films I've seen by Quentin Tarantino, the one that I like most is Jackie Brown (1997); it was fictional but didn't present a revised history of true events like some of his later films did.

So I'm among those who have a problem with the ending of his new movie.

For the most part I like every other thing about it: the story, the setting, the two main characters are interesting (the fading western star and his stunt double) and their lives and careers at the end of 1960s Hollywood. I like how Pitt and DiCaprio are shown in unglamourous moments, and pondering the future of their careers apart from the television shows they were so used to.  In perhaps one of my favorite scenes, DiCaprio takes a lunch break (while filming a western tv show) to read a book, and meets another actor - a young child star who is also reading, and they stop to form an interesting bond before their scene together.

I liked the recreation of 1969 era Hollywood, and enjoyed all of the music and film references as well. My friend who is older knew pretty much every actual actor and film mentioned.

There is an actor who portrays Steve McQueen, and he looks just like him; it was at the moment where I really felt transported into this world and captivated.

So I didn't have a problem with how the fictional characters brush with real-life characters.

But the ending of the film bothered me because it isn't true to history of who was killed and who wasn't killed in real life. Spoiler - Sharon Tate doesn't die; she lives on. It's basically Tarantino's fantasy alternate universe now, as if he jumped into a time machine like in Back to the Future and altered events.

As a viewer I felt like I'm being asked to buy into this imaginative world in which the real-life victims were never murdered, and the actual killers are the ones who get killed. I'm supposed to be entertained by that?

There's something to that ending that I think Tarantino is trying to say but I'm not sure I fully understand. Maybe I'm not meant to understand. Maybe the ending is a dream that Dicaprio is having? That might make more sense interpreted that way.

A new post from A Shroud of Thoughts is a lovely tribute to Sharon Tate, reminding us she was a real person. I knew who she was going into to see the movie, and knew what happened to her. But no doubt, others may watch this film and have no idea. This recent post talks about who's real and who's fake in the film.

The real Sharon Tate may have lived in a "fictional"/ "dreamland" of Hollywood, but she was still a real person, and her life deserves respect. Or maybe a biographical film of her own one day.

Meanwhile, I won't write off Tarantino entirely yet. I will check out some of his additional interviews to better understand what he's trying to say with his film.

The fact that he made a film that has got me thinking after it's over may mean that it's a great film after all.

Here are some of the blogs I recently read for some other perspectives.
- The Collider   Matt has some problems with the ending which I agree with.
- Cinematic Corner - Sati has the same problems that I have with the movie and also talked about audience reaction in her theater.
- Live for Films  Adam echoes some other critics who call it "a love letter to Hollywood… to film making… and to film lovers"; in Amanda's review, she criticized the many female characters whose sole purpose is to react to the men around them.
- From the Front Row  - "Going into a Quentin Tarantino movie, one usually has a certain set of expectations: there will be copious amounts of violence, creative (and constant) use of curse words, extensive references to older films, and lately, a new spin on familiar history."

Bobby Rivers, a teenager in 1969, has a few questions for Tarantino (me, too - the same).
Brian Camp, in his recent post, also was around in '69 and remembers some of the other films of that era.

Keith and the Movies posted about some criticisms of the film:

The author of this Variety article called this "the first dramatic feature about the Manson murders that has a happy ending. Good for him, I guess. And good for us. At least, if you believe that movies should be fairy tales." "Quentin makes the trashing of history look hip....that Sharon Tate “lives” is supposed to send us out on a feel-good cloud (when, in fact, it’s arguably a trivialization of her memory)" - I agree with that.

Blog post by Lazarus' Lair

---

Videos

In this interview (below) from the Cannes Film Festival, Tarantino compares his film to the work of director Claude Lelouch.

Tarantino and the main cast talk to Entertainment Weekly (below)



Below: Cinemablend talks to Quentin Tarantino for about 20 minutes here (Cinemablend is biased and loves Tarantino). In the interview, Tarantino knows his history, and all, but doesn't really talk about the ending.

Dog Day Afternoon (1975)

Sidney Lumet directed this film about a bank-heist gone awry based on a true incident. Al Pacino (Sonny) and John Cazelle (both from The Godfather) decide to rob a bank and take it over, holding everyone inside hostage. The robbers use guns to scare and intimidate but Pacino's character doesn't want to hurt anyone. It's a great performance and you are convinced that he's this character, who wants the money to pay for his lover's sex change surgery. Chris Sarandon plays the lover who calls Sonny on the phone a few times; it's a small part but memorable. Charles Durning is also good as a cop who wants to negotiate and deal with Sonny to let the people out. Meanwhile, the local crowd outside gathers and even cheers on Sonny as a hero, and the hostages inside are getting hungry. In one of my favorite scenes, Sonny decides to order a pizza and cokes; the pizza delivery guy comes and you get the sense that this is his greatest claim to fame so far in life. The ending is sad, as the police follow Sonny and Cazale to the airport where they think they are going to be let go and fly away. It's an interesting film that shows how one criminal incident can grow into a cultural and news media sensation. 

Top 10 Box Office Stars of 1975 (USA)

1932| 1933| 1934| 1935| 1936 | 1937 | 1938 | 1939 | 1940 |
1941 | 1942 | 1943 | 1944 | 1945 | 1946 | 1947 | 1948| 1949 | 1950 |
1951 |1952 | 1953 | 1954 | 1955 | 1956 | 1957 | 1958 | 1959|1960 |
1961 | 1962 | 1963 | 1964 | 1965 |1966 | 1967 | 1968 | 1969 |
1970 | 1971 | 1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1975 | 1976 | 1977-present

The rankings come from Quigley Publishing Co.'s annual list (since 1932) of top money making stars in the USA, which based on a poll of hundreds of theater executives. The list does not rank stars only on how much cash their films made, but on what theater owners say about who attracts audiences on their star power alone.

1. Robert Redford
2. Barbra Streisand

3. Al Pacino

4. Charles Bronson

5. Paul Newman




6. Clint Eastwood


7. Burt Reynolds

8. Woody Allen


9. Steve McQueen

10. Gene Hackman

1932| 1933| 1934| 1935| 1936 | 1937 | 1938 | 1939 | 1940 |
1941 | 1942 | 1943 | 1944 | 1945 | 1946 | 1947 | 1948| 1949 | 1950 |

1951 |1952 | 1953 | 1954 | 1955 | 1956 | 1957 | 1958 | 1959|1960 |
1961 | 1962 | 1963 | 1964 | 1965 |1966 | 1967 | 1968 | 1969 |
1970 | 1971 | 1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1975 | 1976 | 1977-present