Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Miami Vice d. Michael Mann, 2006

A more detailed analysis to come after second viewing, but suffice it to say that this is a perfect marriage of the formal avant-garde and the - almost, but not entirely - classical narrative. Mann tricked Hollywood into letting him make an art-house flick. Best picture (not really right to say "film") of 2006. Would be the best picture of '05 and '07, too. (Not '04, though - Dogville is still an overwhelming masterpiece.)

Real quick: the key to this film is the surface. Convoluted, complicated, but indicative of nothing that lies beneath, Miami Vice is all about this hypereal surface.

For now, I'll send you here, to Keith Uhlich's fantastic review. It's also worth going here Matt Zoller Seitz and Uhlich's year end discussion. You should read the whole thing, but you can also do a page search for "Miami Vice" to get to the relevant bits.


Blogger Ryland Walker Knight said...

So glad you like it. It's interesting to think about with _Nikita_ in how both films deal with (and are about, to a certain degree) what it is to act -- in a film, in life -- and what are the consequences of that surface that is your face and body. Also, it becomes about how faces and bodies are read by other actors in the film, and how reactions play such a huge part.

07 November, 2007 22:50  
Blogger Michael K. said...

That's an interesting take - the consequences of the surface.

I'd never seen Nikita before tonight, and I loved it. I'll post something here soon - maybe tonight, definitely by tomorrow - re: my take on it. It all revolves around that exchange about 2/3 of the way through, where someone says something about trying to fit two things into one. This movie - Nikita - is about the collision between the domestic and action. I mean, it's essentially a typical story about how professional life overwhelmingly interjects itself into relationships. Only this profession happens to be spy, assassin, intrigue, etc.

07 November, 2007 23:54  

Post a Comment

<< Home