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? 

Oscar Nominations, Joker (2019), and Harriet (2019)

The Oscar nominations were announced on Jan 13, and there were a few movies I saw (Harriet was the only film nominated that I saw and liked) but most I haven't seen yet. The Farewell was one of my favorite films of last year but was shut out.

A couple of notable things I noticed: Netflix had a ton of nominated films; this article from Wired talks about that https://www.wired.com/story/oscar-nominations-netflix/

Also many of the nominated films this year are biographical or about real people or have characters that are real people. The Irishman, Ford Vs. Ferrari, Richard Jewell, Jojo Rabbit, Bombshell, The Two Popes, Harriet, Rocketmann, the Mr. Rogers movie with Tom Hanks, and Judy with Renee Zellweger. Even Tarantino's fantasy movie had Sharon Tate as a prominent character, even though she lives at the end which is not true to life.

Biographical/historical films are among my favorite type of movie so I think this is great that biographicals are getting recognized.

Harriet was the movie I was most eager to see in 2019. Here is a big-screen movie about Harriet Tubman --- her story never told on the big screen feature before in over 100 years of film history. It was exciting to think about! In my opinion I feel this movie is one of the most important films of last year. I think we need a film like this more than ever, with so much ignorance of our past history and with all the racism that still exists to this day.

I went to see it in the theater to see Harriet and really enjoyed it. The one thing that I didn't like about it was that it was too short. This film deserves three or 3.5 hours in my opinion. Earlier in the year I sat through 3 hours of a Tarantino fantasy that skewed history, but here was a movie about one of the greatest  people in history that could have been longer. I would watch a mini-series about Harriet if it were made; maybe one day. I do remember the tv film A Woman Called Moses but didn't have a chance to rewatch it yet.

My favorite parts of the movie involved the traitor who snitches on Harriet; I'm guessing this may have been a composite character but it I thought it really added to the drama and suspense. When Harriet makes it to Philadelphia her life takes on a new direction.

It's disappointing that Harriet wasn't nominated for Best Picture; up to 10 movies can be nominated nowadays, and only 9 made the cut this year, including Ford Vs Ferrari - really? Something is seriously wrong with this picture.

Back in 1993, I was in high school and had a black tutor, and we talked about the 65th Oscar nominations that were announced in February of 1993. He pointed out that Malcolm X only received two Oscar nominations (and later no wins) and saw something wrong with that picture -- and I'm feeling  the same almost 30 years later.

In a recent commentary, Mary McNamara of the LA Times observed:

“Harriet,” is the kind of historical epic that generally pleases motion picture academy voters (and one that defies cultural conventions predating film itself), got dinged in many reviews for being too formulaic. This is despite Cynthia Erivo’s astonishing, and Oscar-nominated, performance as a former slave turned verifiable action hero — a female character that somehow never made it to the center of a film before. It was never even discussed as a possibility for best picture, despite there being 10 slots available. If only filmmaker Kasi Lemmons had thought to follow Harriet in a single shot through a world war complete with cameos by British heartthrobs past and present; if only Tubman had been forced to have imaginary conversations with best friend Jefferson Davis. If only “Harriet” had been made and marketed by Netflix. Please do not willfully misunderstand. I’m not saying that “1917,” “Jojo Rabbit,” “The Irishman,” “Marriage Story” and “The Two Popes” are not great and/or awards-worthy films; I’m just saying that “formulaic” often wins big at the Oscars, but only when it’s a certain formula.

I think I understand her point. It seems like the movies that are being recognized this year for the major awards are more "showy" films. But really, Ford Vs Ferrari nominated for Best Picture? Even The Post was nominated for Best Picture a few years ago. I liked that movie alot. But it wasn't any more showy than Harriet.

And then there's Joker, a movie whose title conjures up memories of the comic book villain, my action figure I played with as a kid, my trading cards, Cesar Romero and Jack Nicholson's portrayals (and Heath Ledger's too). Many have pointed out that it's not really about "The Joker" from the comics or TV....It's more a satire in the same vein as Taxi Driver that has a message about today's society.

But come on. Joker. I can still hear Jack Nicholson in my mind say "You can call me....JOKER!...and as you can see I'm alot happier!"  Not typically interested in comic book movies, I skipped the movie Joker when it first came out.

But then I heard filmmaker Michael Moore praising the film recently on his podcast recently, and he spoke with the director Todd Phillips. It turns out that they both have some similar connections going back almost 20 years, and I really enjoyed their conversation where they talk about their respective careers and movies in general.

Michael Moore talks about Joker and interviews director Todd Phillips in the clip below:



So I decided to give it a chance and watched Joker but I hated it. I didn't like the character, I didn't like the tie-ins with Batman characters. I didn't like Taxi Driver either so I probably should have known I wouldn't like this.

The the type of person that Joker is in the film might be the type that would shoot up an office building or a school.

It just seems so unnecessary to me to bring all the Batman lore and stuff, and there's no need to set in the 1980s either. Just set the movie in today's era. If you want to make a realistic movie, make it realistic. The moment you mention "Gotham City" or "Bruce Wayne" or "Wayne Manor", I'm rolling my eyes...

Which movie will be more remembered in 25 or 30 years? or 50 years?  Joker or Harriet? Or both? Or neither?