Review: The "Red Riding" Trilogy

For those of you who don't know, I'm on furlough this week. "What's furlough?" you ask? Well, basically it's a company-wide mandatory week of unpaid vacation. So, what have I been doing with my time? Well, I've done a bit of cleaning, a bit of cooking, a bit of guitar and piano work (I have a show on Friday night in Keyport, after all.) But mostly, I've been watching movies.

So far during this furlough period, I've caught the original "Wolf Man" (it was good), "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" (it was better, really), the Coen Brothers' "A Serious Man" (it was great) and Frank Capra's "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (it was also great). By the way, I didn't mean to watch two Claude Rains movies in one week, but that's the way it worked out.

However, as you can probably tell from the title of this blog post, those aren't the movies I want to talk about. After all, this is my blog, where I do what I want! And I want to talk about a trio of movies you guys and gals probably haven't heard of and even more probably haven't seen: the "Red Riding" trilogy.

No, these movies aren't kids' stuff, nor are they porn, although the title could be applied to either of those things, I guess. No, what "Red Riding" is, basically, is "Ellroy Goes to England." Based on a quadrilogy of novels I haven't read by English author David Peace, the "Red Riding" trilogy looks at systematized crime and corruption in West Yorkshire in the years 1974, 1980 and 1983. (There was also a book set in 1977 which didn't make the journey to film due to budgetary restrictions).

The same screenwriter, "Brothers of the Head" and "Tideland" scribe Tony Grisoni, wrote all three films, which also share some of the same cast members when characters cross over from one year to the other, and some folks even appear in all three.

Each separate film, however, was directed by someone different, who brought their own style to the table. "Red Riding: 1974" was handled by "Becoming Jane" and "Kinky Boots" director Julian Jarrold, "Man on Wire" director James Marsh handled "Red Riding: 1980" and "Red Riding: 1983" was directed by "Shopgirl"'s Anand Tucker.

OK, so now that all of those formalities are out of the way, you probably want to know if the movies were any good on their own, and if the trilogy worked as a whole.

(Note: Now that we're entering the proper review section of this review, I'm going to remain as spoiler-free as possible. However, since the plot depends so heavily on secrets being unraveled over the course of the three films, that means you'll be getting my general thoughts on the three films rather than a plot synopsis.)

Well, here's the thing with trilogies: usually, the weak link of one is its final chapter (for examples, see "Back to the Future III" and "Return of the Jedi"), but that isn't the case with "Red Riding." Here, we have two fine sequels in search of a strong starting point. And when you get right down to it, all of the problems of the second and third films stem from the fact that the first installment drops the ball so badly.

With "Red Riding: 1974," Jarrold and Grisoni should have known that they had a lot of groundwork to lay in painting a picture of a rotten-to-the-core region that makes Polanski's "Chinatown" seem like "Mr. Roger's Neighborhood." But they don't really do that. Much like the fine gray and hazy cinematography that is a defining characteristic of the series, "RR: 1974" never really comes into focus. We're given the entire story from the perspective of rookie beat reporter Eddie Dunford, played by Andrew Garfield, also known as Anton in "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus." Eddie quickly realizes he's in over his head, becomes overwhelmed with the case and as a result the viewer never really gets invested in the child abduction case Eddie's investigating or the corrupt city as a whole.

The best parts of "RR: 1974" are the characters, themes and plot elements that get fleshed out in the sequels. For example, Sean Bean (playing local real estate tycoon John Dawnson) gets a fraction of the amount of his "RR: 1974" screen time in "RR: 1983," but he's put to so much better use it makes you wish a better or more appropriate director had been given the reigns of "RR: 1974."

Which brings us to "RR: 1980," which is easily the best of the three. After seeing him bring a thriller-like sense of tension and suspense to the world of documentaries with the Oscar-winning "Man on Wire," I was really looking forward to seeing what James Marsh did in the world of genre fiction and hot damn, he didn't disapoint. The shortest of the three films by about 10 minutes ("1980" clocks in at around 90 minutes, whereas "1974" and "1983" are both around 100), this is a crisp, tight character piece and thriller that is basically a stand-alone picture until its final act.

Part of the reason "RR: 1980" works so well is because of its cast; Paddy Considine (one of the Andys from "Hot Fuzz" and an early contender for Rorschach in the "Watchmen" movie, that's him in the picture accompanying this review) takes the lead role of Peter Hunter, an honest but complex cop investigating a series of murders and a possible tie-in with corrupt cops, and runs with it -- his work here is just awesome, and reminds me a bit of a British, darker and clean-shaven take on Gary Oldman's Jim Gordon.

Unfortunatley, "RR: 1980" stumbles a bit when Marsh has to tie his film to the events of "RR: 1974" and "RR: 1983." Frankly, it felt like he was working on a separate level from Jarrold and Tucker and he had to lower his game a bit to tie into the other installments.

That's not to say "RR: 1983" was bad; it was actually pretty good. However, it's more of a direct sequel to "1974" and a spin-off of "1980," so it becomes an issue of trying to built a good house on a weak foundation. But "RR: 1983" is worth watching for its pair of lead performances: first there's David Morrissey, whose corrupt copper Maurice Jobson is a supporting player in "RR: 1974" and "RR: 1980," gets to step into the spotlight in "RR: 1983" and reveal a crisis of conscience -- yes, it's a cop flick cliche, but Morrissey and Tucker handle it well.

Also comiing up aces in "RR: 1983" is Mark Addy a a soul-music loving ambulance-chasing attorney who decides to take on the West Yorkshire police force head-on, just like Garfield and Consadine did before him. How do things work out for him and his clients? Watch and find out, if you want to know.

By the time "RR: 1983" comes to a conclusion, it can't help but feel sweeping and grand; after all, if the viewer has watched all three films in order that means they've spent 295 minutes, or just shy of five hours, with these characters and this city and even if they've enjoyed all three films, this will most certainly be a city they'll be hoping to leave. Still, the conclusion would have resonated more if the quality of "Red Riding" had been more consistent across the board.

The "Red Riding" trilogy aired on Channel 4 in England in early 2009, and was released in theaters in the U.S. this month. I believe it's still playing at the IFC Center in New York City, and all three films are currently available on IFC on Demand (that's how I saw them).

If you're a crime film buff, I'd say go ahead and check out all three films; "Red Riding" is a grand experiement in cinematic storytelling that really works, for the most part. However, if you think you may be on the fence, check out "Red Riding: 1980" first, because it's be best of the bunch and feels the most like a stand-alone (although there is information contained in the film that could spoil the end of "RR: 1974" if you haven't seen it yet.) And if you dig "RR: 1980," then go back and check out "RR: 1974" and "RR: 1983."

Quick technical note: The northern English accents in the films, especially in "RR: 1974," can be a bit difficult to decipher at times. However, if you've seen "L.A. Confidential" or "Zodiac," or if you're just familiar with cop flick cliches and archetypes, you can probably just press on through the way I did, or wait until the movies hit DVD or Blu-ray and throw on the subtitles.)

Thoughts on 'The Hurt Locker'

Thanks to the good folks at Netflix, I finally got around to seeing "The Hurt Locker" this weekend. And yeah, it was good. But at this point, I don't think most people really care if it was good; people want to know if it was better or more award-worthy than "Avatar." And you know what? I don't really think it was.

In fact, the more I (and my ever-loving special lady friend) thought about it over the weekend, we realized that pretty much every major criticism that's been thrown at "Avatar" can also be fairly applied to "The Hurt Locker." Don't believe me? Check this out:

"Avatar" criticism #1: The story isn't original.
Without fail, every time someone tries to hate on "Avatar," their principal criticism of the film is that its plot is simply a rehash of a story we've seen executed earlier (and, some would argue, better) in films such as "Dances with Wolves," "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Dune." And that criticism is fair. (But, one could also argue (as I and special lady friend have done) that Cameron needed to keep the story on familiar ground in order to not loose viewers who were already blown away by the film's visuals.)

But, if you want to play the "we've seen this all before" game, try the plot of "The Hurt Locker" on for size: a reckless, doesn't-play-by-the-rules rebel who only feels complete when executing his special brand of warring or crime-fightin' finds himself in conflict with a sensible but stubborn stick-to-the-mission-type in a tense setting where all their lives are in danger, man. Really, if you've seen a war/cop action movie ever, you've seen "The Hurt Locker." The only difference here is that now this story is being told in Baghdad, in 2004.

"Avatar" criticism #2: Its main characters aren't people.
This gripe can also be listed as "its protagonists are all CG creations," which they are, but so was Gollum, and I think we can all agree that he was awesome, amirite? Well, to elaborate slightly on what I was saying under criticism #1, while they may be played by actors (including Jeremy Renner in a star-making performance) the characters in "The Hurt Locker" feel even more artificial than the Na'vi of Pandora; Sgts. James and Sanborn don't feel like people in "The Hurt Locker," they feel like well-executed types.

"Avatar" criticism #3: It was too political, man.
Yes, "Avatar" makes no secret about its lefty-leaning politics. But, being a lefty myself, I didn't really see this as a fault. When a film that's virtually sure to have hundreds of millions of sets of eyes on it decides to really make us think about the cost of waging war and of exploiting natural resources, I simply don't see that as a bad thing.

However, for a film that is set in the midst of the Iraq War, "The Hurt Locker" is strangely apolitical. Sure, there's the film's face-palm-inducingly obvious "war is a drug" message (it's addictive for some, deadly for others) but really, even that left me asking the movie "What else ya got?" By making "The Hurt Locker" a cliche-ridden character study, director Kathryn Bigelow has crafted a movie that pays close attention to the soldiers and largely ignores the war and expects the viewer to do the same -- which, in my opinion, is a grave mistake when you're making a film about a war that's still happening as I type these very words.

A few years ago Mark Boal, the screenwriter behind "The Hurt Locker," had a hand in crafting the story for Paul Haggis' "In the Valley of Elah." While it's also a flawed work, to me "Elah" is a much better and much more socially responsible film, because it looked at both the lives of American soldiers in Iraq and the impact the war has at home. On the other hand, "The Hurt Locker" comes across as a much more self-centered work, because it bypasses the entire Iraq War to focus its attention on someone who probably didn't like to color inside the lines in kindergarten.

*********

Whew. Now, just to be clear, overall I liked "The Hurt Locker." It was well-shot, the performances were strong despite the one-dimensionality of the characters on the page and the editing and camera work did a great job of creating tension without resorting to gimmicky Michael Bay editing tricks. I just don't think it was better than "Avatar," even though I didn't think that movie was perfect, either.

"So, big shot," you might be thinking at this point in the blog post, "who would YOU vote for in the Best Picture Oscar race?"

First of all, thanks for asking, Voice in My Head. Out of the field of 10(?!?!) nominees this year, I'd go with Quentin Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds." I'll probably dedicate a full blog post to my thoughts on that film at some point, but for now let me tell you why it succeeds in the three areas people where are so quick to criticize "Avatar" (and where I'm more than happy to point out flaws in "The Hurt Locker.")

On point one, a dedicated Quentin Tarantino viewer could argue that none of his films are inherently original by design, but that's part of their brilliance. QT takes the genres he loves, turns them on their ear and then gives them back to the world. This time out, he took on three genres:
* The men-on-a-mission picture: He turned the Dirty Dozen into supporting players and ultimately made their contribution to the plot minimal at best because SPOILER ALERT Hitler and company still would have been killed when the theater exploded. Which leads us to...
* The revenge picture: QT took one girl's quest for vengeance and had it change the course of history, which is awesome.
* The detective saga: while you probably don't agree with the side he's playing for (I know I don't), Col. Hans Landa is one great sleuth, and one who probably would get a whole franchise to himself if he wasn't, you know, a Nazi.

Much like in point one, for point two QT has taken some characters we've all seen before and given them entirely fresh spins, like the determined detective (Col. Landa), the salty platoon leader (Aldo Raide), the woman out for vengeance (Shosanna), the double-agent (Bridget von Hammersmark) and the egotistical movie star (Fredrick Zoller). You've seen these characters before, but never like this, and after you see them in "Basterds," you'll never look at them the same way again.

As far as point three goes, "Basterds" isn't incredibly political, and it doesn't need to be. That's one of the beauties of telling Nazi stories; you pretty much don't need to convince anybody in the audience which side they should be rooting for at this shootin' match.

Well, I've gone on a little longer than I expected, but them's my thoughts. But I want to know, what do you guys think? Am I being too hard on "The Hurt Locker"? Is it really as good as everyone says it is? And who are you pulling for in the Best Picture race? Please don't say "The Blind Side."