CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Miller's Crossing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Miller's Crossing

post #1 of 36
5/30/05 at 5:56pm
Thread Starter 
*please don’t stone me…..I did a search and couldn’t find an actual thread devoted to this film….so if there is one floating about be gentle*

I must admit I do feel like something of a sap for always passing up the chance to view this film. Aside from a few choice films, the gangster genre has never really stirred my passion for cinema and as such, I tended to neglect the entire genre. But on Friday I was in a situation where I was given a freebie of sorts. The choice to pick any item in the store under £10 and have it for free.

I was going to finally lay some money down and put the freebie towards getting the Star Wars OT box set when I noticed this DVD on the bottom shelf. I don’t know what inspired me, although I think the recent outpouring of love for the film by Devin and other members of the forum helped, but I grabbed Miller’s Crossing instead…

All I can say is that while I don’t like to pass judgement on a film so soon after seeing it I have to say this is looking like a strong candidate for my favourite film. I have already seen it twice, something I tend to try and avoid, and both times I found myself utterly captivated by everything in this film.

I had always found the coen brothers to be something of a curates egg; I love Fargo, Big Lebowski and the Hudsucker Proxy, but cannot stand Raising Arizona or O’ Brother. But this film really made me understand why they get so much universal love. The imagery was simply wonderful. I do not think I have seen an image quite as striking as the twin Tommy gun barrels slowly being taken upstairs, or a scene quite as haunting as the execution march at Miller’s Crossing.

It was also bolstered by a cast of characters who while all verging on charicture were wonderful. I have particular love for Eddie Dane who is the sort of villain who just oozes presence and power and to my knowledge is one of the few onscreen gay gangters.

All in all I just think this is a fabulous piece of filmmaking that seems to have been maligned and forgotten amongst the more idiosyncratic films of the coen canon.
Reply
post #2 of 36
5/30/05 at 7:02pm
We had a debate about this one earlier in the year where we were trying to work out Tommy's motivations. I asserted that Tommy did what he did not out of any loyalty to Leo, but just out of a desire to manipulate and control people, a point that I think is reinforced by him walking away from Leo at the end of the film.

This one is without a doubt my favorite Coen brothers movie. The dialog pops like none of their other films and the performances given by the actors are spot on to a man, right down to the smaller supporting roles like Frankie and Tic-Tac. The production design is lush and flawless, the photography is amazing, and the scenes are infinitely quoteable.

The scene between Caspar and his son still brings a smile to my face.
Reply
post #3 of 36
5/30/05 at 7:42pm
"A hot dog with mustard! You hear that, Eddie? My boy is as smart as a whip!"

MILLER'S CROSSING isn't just the Coens' best movie, it's one of the best movies ever (in my book, at least).

While I'm quotin', here's that noted lush Tom Reagan, played by the great Gabriel Byrne: "I was in the neighbourhood, feeling a bit daffy. So I thought I'd drop by for an aperitif."

Joel and Ethan's hard-boiled dialogue + Byrne's Irish-whiskey accent = magic.

ETA: I'm certainly not 100 per cent on Tom's motivation - actually, one of the gifts that MILLER'S CROSSING keeps on giving is its ability to keep you mulling over its plot - but I don't believe his plan was pulled off out of any desire to pull the strings.

I think he had Leo's best interests at heart, while Leo was distracted by love or hubris to best tend to his own affairs. I think Tom acted out of loyalty (based on their shared history, based on gratitude, based on affection - who knows?), but his plan required him to confront the darkest aspects of himself (culminating in the killing of Bernie) and he then had to walk away from it all to start over with a clean slate.

Of course, I may be full of shit. But I'd certainly love to hear what other people made of this magnificent movie's plot.

Oh, and one last thing: Carter Burwell's music is so fucking awesome.
Reply
post #4 of 36
5/30/05 at 8:45pm
Great fucking movie.
Not a bad performance in the film, but Albert Finney takes the prize.
and Remember "I am getting sick and tired of Always the High Hat".
Reply
post #5 of 36
5/30/05 at 9:32pm
A brilliant movie. Every time I go back and watch it it surprises me with just how good it really is.
Reply
post #6 of 36
5/30/05 at 11:05pm
And J.E. Freeman is one of the most geniunely scary villains in movie history as
the Dane.
Reply
post #7 of 36
5/31/05 at 8:29am
"Go ahead and run sweetie, I'll track down all'a'you whores"

"I suppose you think you raised hell" "Sister, when I've raised hell, you'll know it"

I could quote this movie all day.

I always felt this film was about Tom's descent into the darkside and how he finally couldn't avoid getting his hands dirty, with the dane, at least he was upfront about being a sadistic bastard but with Tom, he always played from behind the scenes so he wouldn't have to get his hands dirty.

It's the greatest homage to Dashiell Hammett ever made.
Reply
post #8 of 36
5/31/05 at 11:22am
"I'm talking about Friendship. I'm talking about Character. I'm talking about... Hell, Leo, I ain't embarassed to use the word - I'm talking about Ethics."
In my opinion:
The key to Tom's motivations lie in this opening line. It's sort of the mission statement for the movie, as the story boils down to these few ingredients. It's his friendship with Leo that causes him to do what he does, and it's his betrayal of that friendship that forces him to end it in the end.

It's one of my 3 or 4 favorite films ever, a "handsome film about men in hats". It's also extremely cynical - Only suckers trust other people, and those who do end up dead.
Reply
post #9 of 36
5/31/05 at 12:38pm
Verna: "I thought you said you and Leo were through?"

Tom: "I said we were finished, it's not the same thing."

Quote:
The key to Tom's motivations lie in this opening line. It's sort of the mission statement for the movie, as the story boils down to these few ingredients. It's his friendship with Leo that causes him to do what he does, and it's his betrayal of that friendship that forces him to end it in the end.
Exactly.

"It was a smart play all round."

A great film, my favorite film of all time, and maybe the best film ever made.
Reply
post #10 of 36
5/31/05 at 2:20pm
The Coens really produced a timeless piece with this.

Tom : "Rug Daniels is dead."
Verna: "Gee, that's tough."
Tom : "Don't get hysterical."
Reply
post #11 of 36
5/31/05 at 4:52pm
It's strange, this board makes me go out and buy/rent more DVDs than the DVD board its self.
Reply
post #12 of 36
6/1/05 at 4:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Topo
Tom : "Rug Daniels is dead."
Verna: "Gee, that's tough."
Tom : "Don't get hysterical."
Tom: "Not a bad guy, if looks, smarts and personality don't count"
Verna: "You better hope they don't."
Reply
post #13 of 36
6/2/05 at 4:53am
I loved this film, always been my favorite Cohen brothers films, followed by the excellent Barton Fink.
Reply
post #14 of 36
6/2/05 at 5:41am
This was the film where the Coen Bros seemed like a gift you didn't deserve. Everything cool thing they pulled off in this film was a new brilliant turn on its way to a satisfying resolution. Its such a tightly perfect film. It ranks as one of my favorite Coen Bros ' films. Big Lebowski being the other favorite.
Reply
post #15 of 36
12/15/05 at 3:10pm
The best thing about this movie is the legion of fans that are totally oblivious to the fact it's a spoof.
Reply
post #16 of 36
12/16/05 at 6:28am
I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to. It's an adaptation of two Dashiell Hammett books. The world the story takes place in is certainly heightened, and its use of "hard boiled" dialogue and language is very self-aware. But I would consider it to be a very gentle spoof, and one that is quite respectful to the source material. Feel free to elaborate.

I guess I'm just one of the oblivious many
Or maybe I just don't get the joke.
Reply
post #17 of 36
12/16/05 at 7:42am
The Coen brothers satirised established gangster-flick (and general action movie) tropes and cliches in practically every scene. And they aren't gentle at all.

Consider the ridiculously over-the-top sequence (straight out of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, which is referenced at least half-a-dozen times) featuring Albert Finney fearlessly leaping out of a window like some circus acrobat and then pumping a million bullets (a nod toward inexhaustible Hollywood weapons) into the guy in his room above (I laughed till it hurt) and then the fleeing car.

Consider the ridiculous number of beatings Gabriel Byrne takes without ever showing the slightest sign of inconvenience. Notice also that they all end with him delivering a wisecrack.

Consider the ridiculously over-the-top violence going on in the background whenever Tom walks out to talk to the chief - who is a loaded caricature of powerless police chiefs of both cinema and literature ('Hey … I wish someone would tell me what's going on' etc.).

Consider the ridiculously corny exchanges between Tom and Verna, which all follow the path of tepid greetings -> descent into unpleasantness and mutual despising -> jumping into bed/ripping each other's clothes off etc.

Consider the ridiculous relationship between the mob and the police. Collusion between both parties is always implicit and occasionally explicit in gangster movies - but in Miller's Crossing the mobsters actually lead the police. Look at the hilarious shootout scene (which has a great comedy machine-gun reveal) - it's the mobster who leads the attack.

Consider the ridiculous exchanges between Tom and Verna during the 'hat dream' speech. Most action/gangster flicks hit a point where the lead protagonist regales some experience or dream that had life-changing consequences. Verna plays along with this:

'And you chased it, right? You ran and ran, finally caught up to it and you picked it up. But it wasn't a hat anymore and it changed into something else, something wonderful.

Only for Tom to cut her and the audience dead with a response that highlights the silliness of it all:

Nah, it stayed a hat and no, I didn't chase it. Nothing more foolish than a man chasin' his hat.

Consider the big, tough boxer sitting at home reading comics.

etc. etc. etc.

Miller's Crossing takes the piss out of just about everything. That's why I love it.
Reply
post #18 of 36
12/16/05 at 8:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Foster
The Coen brothers satirised established gangster-flick (and general action movie) tropes and cliches in practically every scene. And they aren't gentle at all.
I certainly get that it sends up gangster films in general, I guess I read something into the word "spoof" (I think of The Naked Gun and Scary Movie when someone says spoof, and I think we can agree that MC is not exactly in that vein). I think there is an emotional core there, that makes the film something a lot more than mere parody. The cliches are poked at, sure, but they are also used to effectively tell the story and are subverted when there is need for that.

The style of dialogue reminds me of (of all things) the opening of Once upon a time in the West. " You brought two too many". It's almost parodically badass, and very self-aware. MC is like that all the way.
Reply
post #19 of 36
12/16/05 at 8:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Harvey Cobblepot
I certainly get that it sends up gangster films in general, I guess I read something into the word "spoof" (I think of The Naked Gun and Scary Movie when someone says spoof, and I think we can agree that MC is not exactly in that vein). I think there is an emotional core there, that makes the film something a lot more than mere parody. The cliches are poked at, sure, but they are also used to effectively tell the story and are subverted when there is need for that.
It does have an emotional core, but then most spoofs have emotional cores. Think of Bugsy Malone, which this movie has a lot in common with. I suppose the best comparison I can make is with Kaufman's The Right Stuff, which is one of the most non-serious 'serious movies' I've seen.

Quote:
The style of dialogue reminds me of (of all things) the opening of Once upon a time in the West. " You brought two too many". It's almost parodically badass, and very self-aware. MC is like that all the way.
The dialogue is totally ridiculous:

Leo: You hear about Rug?
Tom: Yeah, RIP.
Leo: They took his hair, Tommy. Jesus, that's strange, why would they do that?
Tom: Maybe it was injuns.

or

Eddie Dane: Where's Leo?
Hitman at Verna's: If I tell you, how do I know you won't kill me?
Eddie Dane: Because if you told me and I killed you and you were lying I wouldn't get to kill you *then*. Where's Leo?

Eddie Dane's (often awful) lines in particular wouldn't be out of place in a Naked Gun movie (I can't find that pinko/communist one of his - but I laughed for ages after it).

As for John Turturro's character - need I say more?
Reply
post #20 of 36
12/16/05 at 8:43am
"I get you smart guy. Straight as a corkscrew, Mr. Inside-outski, like a goddamn bolshevik taking orders from yank central."
Or something like that. The dialogue in this rules the planet.

I get what you are saying, and I guess my mistake is in the interpretation of the word "spoof" (gentle satirical imitation; a light parody).
Reply
post #21 of 36
12/16/05 at 8:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Harvey Cobblepot
"I get you smart guy. Straight as a corkscrew, Mr. Inside-outski, like a goddamn bolshevik taking orders from yank central."
Or something like that. The dialogue in this rules the planet.
Yep. I think Steve Buscemi pips Benicio Del Toro (in The Usual Suspects) for the most unintelligible delivery award. I tried the DVD subtitles but even they couldn't keep up.
Reply
post #22 of 36
12/16/05 at 9:10am
Hmmm ... reading Roger Ebert's review, I'm not entirely certain we watched the same film:

Quote:
I am also not sure that the other characters in this movie would inhabit quite the same clothing, accents, haircuts and dwellings as we see them in. This doesn't look like a gangster movie, it looks like a commercial intended to look like a gangster movie. Everything is too designed. That goes for the plot and the dialogue, too. The dialogue is well-written, but it is indeed written. We admire the prose rather than the message. People make threats, and we think about how elegantly the threats are worded.
What on earth is he talking about? We're supposed to laugh at the delivery and realise the stupidity of the message. This is not a serious movie.
Reply
post #23 of 36
12/16/05 at 9:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Foster
Yep. I think Steve Buscemi pips Benicio Del Toro (in The Usual Suspects) for the most unintelligible delivery award.
I have the R2 special edition, I like to use English subtitles whenever I can, and I remember thinking about the shmuck who had to write those; "that poor, poor man".
This is a film that has to be experienced in English. I can't even fathom seeing it dubbed.
Reply
post #24 of 36
12/16/05 at 5:11pm
Miller's Crossing isn't a spoof. Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid is a spoof. Millers plays with a genre that's exaggerated and ridiculous to begin with. Dashiell Hammet didn't take hardboiled fiction any more seriously than the Coens do -- they're just pushing it to an extreme that wouldn't have been acceptable sixty years earlier.
Reply
post #25 of 36
12/16/05 at 5:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ Fischer
Miller's Crossing isn't a spoof. Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid is a spoof. Millers plays with a genre that's exaggerated and ridiculous to begin with. Dashiell Hammet didn't take hardboiled fiction any more seriously than the Coens do -- they're just pushing it to an extreme that wouldn't have been acceptable sixty years earlier.
Spoof: A gentle satirical imitation; a light parody.

Yep.
Reply
post #26 of 36
12/16/05 at 5:36pm
There's nothing in MC to distinguish it from what takes place in the genre's basic rules. By your argument, the entire genre is a spoof -- which isn't out of the question -- but the film isn't spoofing a genre that is already not a serious endeavor.
Reply
post #27 of 36
12/16/05 at 5:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ Fischer
There's nothing in MC to distinguish it from what takes place in the genre's basic rules. By your argument, the entire genre is a spoof -- which isn't out of the question -- but the film isn't spoofing a genre that is already not a serious endeavor.
Which genre? Crime? Hard-Boiled Crime? American Hard-Boiled Crime? There are other forms of Hard Boiled, you know.

I agree that American Hard-Boiled Crime (Euro Hard-Boiled - say Gavin Lyall - plays to different rules entirely) doesn't take itself too seriously, but some authors take it more seriously than others.

And in case, MC spoofs outside of the genre. The last time I checked, Hammett didn't write The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
Reply
post #28 of 36
12/16/05 at 6:06pm
Quote:
Which genre? Crime? Hard-Boiled Crime? American Hard-Boiled Crime? There are other forms of Hard Boiled, you know.
Since it's an American film largely based on the work of one of America's signature hard boiled crime authors, that's a question you don't need to ask. But if specificity will help: American Hard-Boiled Crime.

It's a spectacular genre because it has such a mixture of serious action, commentary and pure outrageousness. It manages to be deadly serious and take the piss at the same time. The film fits right in. It's meant to be funny, absolutely, but the movie is too much a part of the genre to be spoofing it.

Quote:
The last time I checked, Hammett didn't write The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
Nope, but he did write Red Harvest, which was a large part of the inspiration for Yojimbo (or the sole basis, depending on who you ask), which became a Fistfull of Dollars. Think Leone was unaware of Hammett? Hard-boiled crime definitely factored into spaghetti westerns. The films of Leone, Corbucci and others frequently borrow style and content from the genre.

Some of the examples you cite above also come from Red Harvest. Everything in the film that has to do with cops and the mob -- right from the book. The city leaders in Leo's pocket. The mob running the cops. The new mobsters becoming cops after a regime change. The casual and constant background violence.

Several of your other examples come from The Glass Key. I can't be as specific there since it's been a few years.
Reply
post #29 of 36
12/16/05 at 6:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ Fischer
Since it's an American film largely based on the work of one of America's signature hard boiled crime authors, that's a question you don't need to ask. But if specificity will help: American Hard-Boiled Crime.

It's a spectacular genre because it has such a mixture of serious action, commentary and pure outrageousness. It manages to be deadly serious and take the piss at the same time. The film fits right in. It's meant to be funny, absolutely, but the movie is too much a part of the genre to be spoofing it.
I’m sorry, but there’s no way you’re going to convince me that … say … Raymond Chandler – another Hard-Boiled, and arguably the greatest, genre writer, unless you plan on changing the criteria for entry, plays for the same kind of laughs that the Coen brothers do in Miller’s Crossing.

Yes, both put forward taciturn, wisecracking protagonists who seemingly possess a predilection for masochism – but if side-splitting scenes such as those between Tom and the Chief-of-police (and I'm not even mentioning what goes on in the background) take place in Chandler – I’ve not read them. You can't argue that Bugsy Malone isn't a spoof - and some of the things that go on in MC make BM's spoofing look tame.
Reply
post #30 of 36
12/16/05 at 6:37pm
I didn't say that, and I won't. But I laugh at Chandler like I laugh at Hammett and the Coens. His description of Marlowe ("a nice clean private detective who wouldn't drop cigar ashes on the floor and never carried more than one gun", which I just lifted from Wikipedia) is funny.

And as I said intitially, in MC they push the genre to an extreme that would have seemed outlandish when Chandler and Hammett were writing. But it's not even so extreme. Fundamentally, I think each creator's world view, sense of humor and capacity for violence (and mix of the three) is very close to that of the others, and at times identical.
Reply
post #31 of 36
12/16/05 at 6:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ Fischer
I didn't say that, and I won't. But I laugh at Chandler like I laugh at Hammett and the Coens. His description of Marlowe ("a nice clean private detective who wouldn't drop cigar ashes on the floor and never carried more than one gun", which I just lifted from Wikipedia) is funny.

And as I said intitially, in MC they push the genre to an extreme that would have seemed outlandish when Chandler and Hammett were writing. But it's not even so extreme. Fundamentally, I think each creator's world view, sense of humor and capacity for violence (and mix of the three) is very close to that of the others, and at times identical.
Russ, I think we're just going to have to agree on you being wrong and me being right. ;-)
Reply
post #32 of 36
12/16/05 at 6:55pm
That's pretty much what I was thinking.

Not that it matters. MC is a fucking great movie no matter what it's intended to be.
Reply
post #33 of 36
12/16/05 at 6:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ Fischer
That's pretty much what I was thinking.

Not that it matters. MC is a fucking great movie no matter what it's intended to be.
Absolutely.
Reply
post #34 of 36
12/17/05 at 8:06am
One of the things I love about it is that it is so *deliberate*. There are no accidents in this film. Everything that happens on screen happens for a reason, and every character and line serves the film and the world that is being created. In that respect, I consider this to be a perfect film. There is nothing in it that, for me, breaks the magic.

That deliberateness (is that a word?) also goes to what Geoff quoted from Ebert, that everything feels designed. Sure it does, the film is about as stylized as it could possibly be. But that's a good thing.
Reply
post #35 of 36
6/23/11 at 9:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Foster View Post

The best thing about this movie is the legion of fans that are totally oblivious to the fact it's a spoof.

Its stylized (maybe even over the top at times... Leo jumping out the window, etc), but it's not JOHNNY DANGEROUSLY.

Reply
post #36 of 36
6/23/11 at 9:31pm

Blu-ray is up for pre-order..........

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Miller's Crossing