The Sin City Films (Miller & Rodriguez, 2005/2014)

[JHunter]

btw, did tarrantino actually guest direct? if so, what sequence/scene?

It was the scene where Clive Owen and Benicio Del Toro have a little "talk" in the car. Robert Rodriguez says that he asked him to direct the sequence as an attempt to convert him to shooting films digitally (after listening to Tarantino complain about the long shoot on "Kill Bill").

[Martha]

NPR's got an hour-long interview by Kevin Smith with Miller and Rodriguez up here.

[cdnchris]

Oh my God, I loved it! My wife did, too, despite the violence (which was shockingly bad!) It was really a living, breathing comic book that was heavily influenced by film noir. I admired Hulk for it's attempts at the "true" comic book adaptation, but this one blows it away by far. I'm now fascinated by this comic book as I wasn't familiar with it before. And I couldn't believe it, but I actually really enjoyed Mickey Rourke's performance. Maybe this will give him a nudge in his career.

I was fearing the CGI stuff would grow old, really just more of Rodriguez experimenting with his new toys (like Once Upon a Time in Mexico), but the film is so well done overall, story wise, acting wise, and visually, that I never got sick of it. In fact I forgot about it while watching. I accepted the world being presented as actually being real, despite it's over-the-top violence, film noir dialogue (the voice over dialogue was great) and sort of campy acting. I was intrigued by the movie just because of the technical aspects, the look, and the fact I do like movies about rough, mean, tough guys, but it actually sucked me in and it was a pretty wild ride. There were a couple parts that probably could have been cut, true, but I forgave it because as a whole I really enjoyed it.

I liked it a lot more than I thought I would. I'd also have to say it was the most fun I've had at the theaters in a long time (no kids, either, which was a bonus.)

[Pinback]

There's an interview with Rodriguez in which he talks about the Sin City DVD here. Sounds pretty cool.

[The Invunche]

Except for the sad trend that movie makers now focus on the DVD and not the theatrical release. It's not enough that we have to tolerate loud kids and exorbitant ticket prices. Now we also have to make do with what the director himself considers an inferior product.

But yeah, the DVD sounds cool.

[dx23]

Except for the sad trend that movie makers now focus on the DVD and not the theatrical release. It's not enough that we have to tolerate loud kids and exorbitant ticket prices. Now we also have to make do with what the director himself considers an inferior product.

But yeah, the DVD sounds cool.

I think this is an entire different topic that should be discussed in a new thread, but since it came up here I'm going to tackle your point of view. I don't think that directors are giving us an inferior product in the theatrical releases, just giving us a cut of the film that follows the normal standards without losing story or narrative and they are following studio orders to make the film profitable. On the other hand, directors (well, most of them) are taking advantage at its fullest of the DVD technology to give us the complete filmaking project, just as Rodriguez plans to do and at the same time selling the product by telling the consumer that there is going to be something new. We have to remember that most directors still have to follow studio orders so they can get their movies financed and at the same time, the majority of the theater audience is not interested in different cuts of a film, like Rodriguez plans to give us in the upcoming DVD release. Most of the extras and things like commentary on DVDs are for film buffs like us, which are the minority.

[The Invunche]

Yes but once they would fight the studio, now it seems they don't care. I have no reason to go to the theater anymore if this is the way it's gonna be.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I saw this film opening day was amazed at how faithful Rodriguez was to Miller's graphic novels (it doesn't hurt to have the creator as co-director). Virtually all of the film's dialogue came directly from the comic books and the visuals were ripped literally from the pages. Amazing. Fans of the comic book should be happy with how faithful this movie is to its source material. I daresay it is THE most faithful comic book adaptation put to film that I have ever come across. I mean, you always run into the danger of being too faithful to the style of the comic book but not to the content (like Warren Beatty's Dick Tracy). I felt that Rodriguez and Miller maintained an excellent balance. I know, there's been a lot of articles talking about how close they got to the comic book but this site has a great shot by shot comparison from all three books:

http://www.filmrot.com/images/sincity-c ... ncity.html

Amazingly, all of the ultraviolence from the books was preserved--stylized just enough to get past the censors (huzzah!). I thought that the three protagonists were brilliantly cast. I wasn't sure how Clive Owen was going to do with the stylized pulp noir dialogue but he pulled it off. And let's face it, Mickey Rourke and Bruce Willis were born to play their roles. I really felt that their world-weary voices perfectly captured their down-on-their-luck losers looking for redemption.

I also thought that the bad guys were brilliantly cast, from the eerie portrayal of the mute cannibal, Kevin by Elijah Wood (who I would have never thought of casting in this role in a million years but dammit he pulls it off) to the sleazebag cop Jack Rafferty (played with reptilian charm by Benicio Del Toro). It was also great to see underrated character actors like Powers Boothe in there and Rutger Hauer finally in a high profile movie instead of direct-to-video crapola.

I thought that the some of the actresses didn't quite sell the film's hard-boiled dialogue. Jessica Alba wasn't as bad as I feared but she was miscast. Physically, she doesn't resemble her character at all but she didn't detract from the film. That being said, Rosario Dawson and Brittany Murphy were excellent.

All in all, a fantastic film that managed to capture Miller's homage and playful parody (at times) of classic pulp noir. Definitely my favourite Rodriguez film to date. I have always felt that while his films totally engage me on a stylistic level they tend to fall short in the screenplay department. He finally found the right mix with this film.

[obloquy]

I saw this last night and loved it. My wife and I both felt the same after: we felt a little guilty saying it was great, as brutal as it is, but it was great. I loved the pacing, the steadiness of which was aided by the near-constant voice-over. I also loved the episodic layout. Rourke, Willis, and Wood are all standouts.

[Jun-Dai]

I think I would have enjoyed the film more if I had managed to block my ears off. It's amazing to me that a film can be so slick visually and yet have such stiff and self-conscious acting. Also, while the dialogue seems like something that would work in a comic book, comic book dialogue almost never comes off well when read aloud.

[Kirkinson]

I'll be interested to see the full versions of each story as presented on the DVD. They cut out one of my favorite lines from "The Hard Good-bye":

THUG: "Please don't kill me..."
MARV: "I already killed you, you jerk."

Overall, I didn't have much of a response to this film one way or another. I'm still trying to figure out why. For me it seemed to be stuck in this nebulous space where Rodriguez decided to go a certain route but ended up not taking it as far as he should have. He was clearly striving to recreate the look of the comics very precisely, but I felt it ended up simply looking like a watered down version of Miller's work. As stark as the contrasts were, they weren't nearly as stark as the comic's; as sharp and as twisted as the angels and perspectives sometimes were, they weren't nearly as sharp and twisted as the comic's.

Most comic book adaptations don't have this problem because they don't strive to recreate their source material so exactly; they attempt to adapt the material into something cinematic knowing from the start that what works in a comic book might not work in a motion picture. I feel the same holds true of novels and short stories. I think Miller and Rodriguez sort of shot themselves in the feet here by attempting what they've attempted. The finished product ended up feeling to me like little more than a pale imitation of the comic book.

But I don't know, my own arguments don't convince me. They seem self-contradictory. I'm still trying to figure out why the film left me so cold when I enjoyed what I read of the comics. Maybe Rodriguez just didn't have the talent to successfully pull off what he was trying to do. Maybe he should have spent more time putting it together - I've never really accepted his apparent belief that a faster shoot necessarily constitutes a better shoot. And I really wish one of his co-composers would take him aside and let him know how bad his music is. When the credits rolled I couldn't help but be reminded of how terribly John Carpenter's score to his own In the Mouth of Madness ruined the mood of that film.

There were things I enjoyed. I have to agree with the sentiments of a few others who have said that the scene Tarantino directed was the best in the film - it was indeed my favorite as well, the most delightfully morbid and sickly funny piece in the film. It helped that I thought Benicio Del Toro and Clive Owen gave two of the three best performances, along with Mickey Rourke. Come to think of it, I also think this is Bruce Willis's best work since Twelve Monkeys.

[DrewReiber]

When the credits rolled I couldn't help but be reminded of how terribly John Carpenter's score to his own In the Mouth of Madness ruined the mood of that film.

Strongly disagree, in both cases. I really felt the scores were more complimentary rather become overly theme based or otherwise noticable over the visuals.

I have to agree with the sentiments of a few others who have said that the scene Tarantino directed was the best in the film - it was indeed my favorite as well, the most delightfully morbid and sickly funny piece in the film.

I really thought it was the most over-indulgent piece in the film, with a dragging pace. Stuck out like a sore thumb, when I personally believe the film should have remained second fiddle to the work of Frank Miller.

Come to think of it, I also think this is Bruce Willis's best work since Twelve Monkeys.

I would definitely agree it's the best film he's been in since that one, as I still have issues with Unbreakable...

[Andre Jurieu]

I have to agree with the sentiments of a few others who have said that the scene Tarantino directed was the best in the film - it was indeed my favorite as well, the most delightfully morbid and sickly funny piece in the film.

I really thought it was the most over-indulgent piece in the film, with a dragging pace. Stuck out like a sore thumb, when I personally believe the film should have remained second fiddle to the work of Frank Miller.

Gasp! Really? I never would have expected that reaction!

I really think the creators of Sin City made a mistake in telling us what scene Tarantino directed. It would have been much more intriguing if they had just told us he directed some segment in the movie, but remained vague about specifics. It would have been much more fun watching viewer reactions and guesses as to what he was responsible for.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

For me it seemed to be stuck in this nebulous space where Rodriguez decided to go a certain route but ended up not taking it as far as he should have. He was clearly striving to recreate the look of the comics very precisely, but I felt it ended up simply looking like a watered down version of Miller's work.

I think that the only area that felt watered down was with the nudity. And from interviews I've read recently with Jessica Alba, that was Rodriguez's decision. Clearly, she was uncomfortable with doing any kind of nudity but aside from that I just don't think she was right for the role. Someone else would've been much, much better but that is the only real quibble I have with the movie.

I think Miller and Rodriguez sort of shot themselves in the feet here by attempting what they've attempted. The finished product ended up feeling to me like little more than a pale imitation of the comic book.

I have to respectfully disagree with you there. I felt that the movie eerily mirrored the comic book. The film recreated certain panels almost verbatim right down to framing and composition. As I said above, pretty much all of the dialogue was directly taken from the comics as well. Also, I really felt that the the mood and atmosphere of the comic was transferred properly. Maybe the movie was a little silly in parts but so is the comic in some ways. It is pretty over-the-top in many ways. I also felt that the comic's ultraviolence was preserved pretty much intact... one of my biggest worries was that the MPAA would go hog-wild all over it but Rodriguez seems to have a pretty good relationship with them and they seem to leave him alone.

And I really wish one of his co-composers would take him aside and let him know how bad his music is. When the credits rolled I couldn't help but be reminded of how terribly John Carpenter's score to his own In the Mouth of Madness ruined the mood of that film.

Actually, I liked Carpenter's score for Madness but that's another story. I have to admit that was another worry I had going into the movie was how Rodriguez would score it but I felt that pretty much all of the music was appropriate and more than helped enhance the gritty noir vibe of the movie.

[Kirkinson]

I really thought it was the most over-indulgent piece in the film, with a dragging pace. Stuck out like a sore thumb, when I personally believe the film should have remained second fiddle to the work of Frank Miller.

Well, if most of the film left me cold, saying the one scene that really engaged me stuck out like a sore thumb is not unreasonable.

Strongly disagree, in both cases. I really felt the scores were more complimentary rather become overly theme based or otherwise noticable over the visuals.

I have to admit that was another worry I had going into the movie was how Rodriguez would score it but I felt that pretty much all of the music was appropriate and more than helped enhance the gritty noir vibe of the movie.

We listen for different things, I suppose. For me the music was a distraction, "gritty" as interpreted by Muzak, something that could have easily been put together with a basic set of Acid loops. Perhaps that has something to do with it - as it becomes easier and easier to put this sort of score together, I might be demanding more from the music I hear. But Bernard Herrmann said it was one of the paradoxes of film scoring that music used effectively could be music of very poor quality, so I'm willing to place some of the blame on my own ears and expectations. Still, I think that given the film's over-the-top, highly stylized nature, a score more tied to the emotions and motivations of the characters in addition to complimenting the gritty, urban thriller side of things (which I don't think the current score does a good job of anyway) would have been more than appropriate.

Honestly, I didn't dislike anything else in the film passionately enough to feel compelled to disagree with the other opinions put forth here. And as I said, I'm not confident enough in the arguments I've introduced to really defend them as well as I should. The fact that everything Fletch said makes sense to me says that I need to look for other arguments. I'm not happy simply saying "I didn't like it," but likewise the fact that I can't pinpoint exactly what I felt was wrong with it doesn't automatically make me like it more. If my thoughts become more coherent I'll return to this.

I really think the creators of Sin City made a mistake in telling us what scene Tarantino directed. It would have been much more intriguing if they had just told us he directed some segment in the movie, but remained vague about specifics. It would have been much more fun watching viewer reactions and guesses as to what he was responsible for.

Agreed. I wonder if my opinion would have been different had I been in the dark.

[miloauckerman]

I'm surprised to see so much positive reaction to this. Aside from the Del Toro/Owen car scene (and the segment around it for the most part), this was pretty bad. Pedestrian violence (even Man On Fire was better on that angle, plus it had Christopher Walken), uninteresting composition and visual style outside of what was borrowed (I believe, I don't read funny books) from the comics, brutally bad acting (esp. Willis).

Now knowing that Tarantino was behind the camera for the one outstanding scene of the film makes me hope he does try one of these all-CGI digital movies, he's less likely than Rodriguez (or the director of Sky Captain) to let the gimmickry get in the way of storytelling.

Rodriguez doesn't have much to commend as a director. He's never been one for an inventive, unique or interesting visual style, he doesn't handle actors well, he doesn't handle narrative well, at times he resorts to tv-action cutting to disguise his inability to choreograph action.

[neuro]

To chime in as well, it's a gorgeous film. For me, it captured the tone of the comics perfectly - noir as depicted by Bosch, romantic fatalism, comic book excess, exploitative violence, etc., etc. Its look is simply stunning, especially in its use of color and light, which is a byproduct of Rodriguez's apparent fetishistic devotion to getting Miller's vision translated verbatim to the big screen. While Miller's comics were always cinematic, and one could argue that Miller had already done a lot of the work for Rodriguez, the latter's ability to translate Miller's static images into striking cinematic compositions is remarkable (and it's interesting to note that many times, he turns noir conventions on their head, often portraying characters silhouetted in white, or inversing the typical noir palette). While the necessity of Tarantino's involvement is arguable, I also found his use of color very painterly in an abstract, Brakhage sort of way.

In his lukewarm review of the film, J. Hoberman makes the interesting observation that the film may very well be a new phase in filmmaking; he uses the word "post-photographic," and while I typically cringe at the prefix "post" attached to any artistic movement, the term strikes me as being appropriate - Rodriguez and Miller's world is totally artificial, both visually and conceptually, but it is entirely convincing and successful.

Despite his slavish use of Miller's panels as a blueprint, I have to give Rodriguez a lot of credit; while maintaining Miller's vision, he also does a lot of interesting things with the camera and with the editing. For example, he often makes cuts that give the impression of breaks between panels in their abruptness and the collision of imagery. He keeps the camera moving as well, giving life to the images that Miller could, by limitation, only hint at.

Overall, I was very surprised how much I enjoyed it; the running time sped by (with the possible exception of the last bit of the That Yellow Bastard storyline, which teetered on cliche). It had excellent depth and I'd love to bathe in its atmosphere again sometime soon. I'm not quite sure if it would be as effective on viewers not familiar with the source material (the "funny books" as miloauckerman evidences above, apparently placing Miller's work on the same plane as Archie Comics or Lil' Abner...nudge, nudge), but for those who are, it should be a very fulfilling experience.

[neuro]

Apart from my other post, I have a question about Miller's work that hopefully someone more knowledgeable than myself can answer and hopefully it won't totally derail this thread:

As I was reminded tonight viewing the film, having last read the comics at least three years ago, there are touches of Nazi imagery throughout Miller's work, especially in Sin City, and therefore in the film as well, from the hookers' earrings, to gang member uniforms, to Miho's throwing stars, etc. I don't sense any presence of Neo-Nazism or racism in Miller's work (although broad stereotyping definitely), but I'm curious as to whether or not he's ever mentioned its usage or commented on such. Is he just playing with taboo imagery, or is there some sort of underlying context that I'm just missing?

[Steven H]

I watched this the other day and have a few small general complaints: too much sound (it should have been quieter, and match the often minimalist visual aesthetic) and a few of the actors were distractingly bad (Duncan, Alba, and Bledel spring to mind). A friend said she couldn't get Alba and Bledel's television work out of their mind while they were watching, I chalk this up to their poor acting skills. Alba might as well have been reading a teleprompter, completely distracted, and yet still managed to come off forced.

After the viewing my girlfriend and I had quite an argument about how women were portrayed in the film. Her stance is that all women are prostitutes (or close) and as strong willed as they may be, this is problematic from a political point of view. I can see her point, but I prefer to think of the film (and the comic) as a dystopia. Basin City seems like an alternate universe where artful classic Film Noir comes riding along with Mickey Spillaine and modern violent excess (also, lovely black and white artwork) to provide a potent allegory for human nature. Organized religion and government control are clearly lampooned in light of the chaos that rules this world (except for a few stringent rules: sex comes with a price, heroes are aware of their destinies, etc)... nothing new, but still.

So the women are portrayed as prostitutes ("or close"), is this a masturbatory fantasy world created by Miller, potent allegory, or both? A lot of philosophy is espoused during it's 126 min. running time, especially Hardigan and the older Rourkes, but I can't think of anything specifically that brought the film out of it's homagery and fantasy and into the allegory I spoke of. Maybe if you go in and just assume that Miller is a good person and would never write something that would disregard life and humanity the way the film seems to do on a surface level, you'll expect more from it. One obvious internal thing that sticks out is that many of the characters (especially the heroes) seem to know what a horrible place they live in, and seek to make it better. This basic fact alone may indicate a very real direction and evidence pointing towards it being the second ("potent allegory"), but who knows for certain. I could imagine a very convincing argument that the film is pure masturbatory homagery (second time I've used this non-word "homagery"... I apologize, it keeps flickering into my head as appropriate).

It's funny that I went into this expecting not to care about the characters (and can't say that I found Willis' Hardigan to be an exception), but I did. I definitely felt a jolt during these two lines:

What if I'm wrong? I've got a condition. I get confused sometimes. What if I've imagined all this? What if I've finally turned into what they've always said I would turn into? A maniac. A psycho killer.

This struck me as frightening and honest (it also brought back memories of the comic), other than those two words I can't explain why it gave me a lump in my throat.

It's time to prove to your friends that you're worth a damn. Sometimes that means dying, sometimes it means killing a whole lot of people.

For some reason the idea of Dwight caring about "friends" in this film added volumes. As testosterone filled as his escapades were, his actions were treated as ethical in the context of the film... and this line seems to rationalize it. It also places mortality in it's right place. Sure people are murdered as if they didn't exist in the first place, but death hangs over everyone's head, no matter who they are. It's an equalizer.

Quite a rant for a film I'm still not sure whether I liked or not (and that car scene Tarantino supposedly directed is weak, maybe the weakest).

[neuro]

So the women are portrayed as prostitutes ("or close"), is this a masturbatory fantasy world created by Miller, potent allegory, or both?

One could probably argue that many, if not all, of Miller's characters in Sin City are essentially only slight variations on well-tread noir stereotypes; the cliched "hooker with a heart of gold" comes to mind in reference to his questionable female characters. This in mind, I think your perception of Basin City as a dystopia is probably closer to Miller's intentions; after all, his male characters aren't that true-to-life either.

I sense a strong morality in Miller's work and, by proxy, the film as well; at the same time, there is a deep sense of pessimism and existentialism running parallel. Miller depicts characters who do truly heroic things (Hardigan springs to mind) in a superhumanly moralistic and righteous sort of way, yet at the same time, demonstrates that in the universe of Basin City he's created, the good guys are as prone to violence and cruelty as the bad guys. Hardigan is so obsessed with doing what is just that he compromises his own morality - he becomes a vigilante. Ironically nothing in his work, aside from the artwork, is black and white; everyone is a sinner, and everyone pays - another facet that links Miller's work to traditional noir tradition.

In regard to the female characters, they are just as vulnerable as the men; yet I would argue that despite their stereotypical social roles (hookers, dames, femme fatale, etc.), his female heroines are quite different from those of noir tradition. There's a more pro-active sense to many of his female characters, more of a strength. While in many noir, the femme fatale is depicted as scheming, lecherous, manipulative, etc., Miller's women seem to decide their roles for themselves. It seems that his hookers want to be turning tricks and they like defending their own turf. They run Old City without help from the men, and in fact, the men are afraid of them; they say when and with whom they have sex with, or else.

Now where the characters that Marv refers to as "dykes" fit into this, I'm not quite sure.

[Steven H]

Now where the characters that Marv refers to as "dykes" fit into this, I'm not quite sure.

good ol Marv. Well put, I think you summarized what I was trying to say much better than what I threw out. I think while I was expressing my view, part of me was holding back comparing the film to noir too much, and trying to see it from an ignorant to film history standpoint. A familiarity with noir seems to be the key to unlocking what makes Basin City tick (how's that for a mixed metaphor? Locks and clocks.)

[Anonymous]

Apart from my other post, I have a question about Miller's work that hopefully someone more knowledgeable than myself can answer and hopefully it won't totally derail this thread:

As I was reminded tonight viewing the film, having last read the comics at least three years ago, there are touches of Nazi imagery throughout Miller's work, especially in Sin City, and therefore in the film as well, from the hookers' earrings, to gang member uniforms, to Miho's throwing stars, etc. I don't sense any presence of Neo-Nazism or racism in Miller's work (although broad stereotyping definitely), but I'm curious as to whether or not he's ever mentioned its usage or commented on such. Is he just playing with taboo imagery, or is there some sort of underlying context that I'm just missing?

Pretty sure its neither. Frank Miller doesn't strike me as a National Socialist (I think he's just going bald), More likely it was a Japanese manji-shaped throwing star. My roommate is Indian ("dots, not feathers"), and I was once made uncomfortable at a religious celebration in which everyone got swastikas painted on their foreheads. Apparently, the symbol has a long and varied history or some crap. You can trace its lineage here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Buddhism

[Andre Jurieu]

My roommate is Indian ("dots, not feathers"), and I was once made uncomfortable at a religious celebration in which everyone got swastikas painted on their foreheads. Apparently, the symbol has a long and varied history or some crap. You can trace its lineage here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Buddhism

Not like you need it after that wikipedia article, but I'll back up the fact that it has a long and varied history ("or some crap") in Eastern cultures, especially within the Hindu and Buddhist cultures. I had to endure a lot of lectures as a kid about how the Nazi's bastardized the Hindu symbol - the real sticky point is apparently that it's rotated slightly. Can't speak to why exactly Miller decided to use it, but it does make some sense for the throwing star.

[neuro]

Thanks, Matt! (and Andre, for that matter) And all it would have took was about thirty seconds worth of research on my part to discover that (oh, well). I think part of me actually knew that, and assumed that was what Miller was doing, but wondered if anyone knew of a definite explanation.

At the same time however, and with all due respect to you, I think it's naïve to think that Miller drew several swastikas throughout the series and expected them not to be associated with that particular historical context. There's an agenda there, whether it's innocent, as you mentioned, or more serious. The impression that popped into my mind was that Miller was recontextualizing the symbol itself as a piece of visual information; sort of like Walter De Maria's Museum Piece.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Thanks, Matt! (and Andre, for that matter) And all it would have took was about thirty seconds worth of research on my part to discover that (oh, well). I think part of me actually knew that, and assumed that was what Miller was doing, but wondered if anyone knew of a definite explanation.

At the same time however, and with all due respect to you, I think it's naïve to think that Miller drew several swastikas throughout the series and expected them not to be associated with that particular historical context. There's an agenda there, whether it's innocent, as you mentioned, or more serious. The impression that popped into my mind was that Miller was recontextualizing the symbol itself as a piece of visual information; sort of like Walter De Maria's Museum Piece.

For what it's worth, Miller has used Nazi imagery before. In Dark Knight Returns, Batman fights a Neo-Nazi woman with swastikas tattooed (painted?) on her breasts. I always felt that in the context of that series, he was portraying that imagery in a negative way as the woman was obviously a foe of Batman's.

As for how it is used in Sin City... good question. I haven't run across any interviews with Miller regarding this issue. I'd have to check. I've got the excellent Comics Journal book that reprints several interviews they conducted with Miller over the years -- maybe there is something in there.