Sin City

Sin City poster I know this review is coming to you long after the movie I'm writing about was in theaters. At the time, I was absolutely intrigued by the trailers I saw because they looked so edgy, but I debated whether to see the movie for weeks, as I had heard from several different sources that it is exceedingly violent. Finally I was able to talk to a friend who is familiar with the works of Frank Miller, the graphic novelist who co-wrote the screenplay and co-directed the film. By that point in time Sin City was no longer playing locally. This past weekend I had plans to be in the city anyway, so I crossed the bay early and went to the last theater in the greater Bay Area still showing this movie.

First of all, the violence: My friend had advised me that while the violence in Sin City is plentiful, it is not much more so than is typical of modern movies and it is rendered in a "cartoon-ish" fashion that is faithful to the Miller books on which it is based. Perhaps J. is correct in that assessment, but I found the graphic portrayal of human mutilation to be too much for me. While the brutality is stylized here, there is just no getting around how sickening it is to see beheading, dismemberment and torture, all from start to finish, on the big screen. To say that I needed a shower, and a drink, when I came out of the theater is completely inadequate. Actually, I wondered how, aside from the visual styling in Sin City, this movie would be different to look at than an actual snuff film? So I cannot recommend that anyone see this movie, and I now understand why it evaporated from theaters so quickly, given the big budget marketing campaign that proceeded its release. Also, for those of you who are parents, never, ever have the dvd of this movie in your home.

And yet, Sin City is a visual masterpiece absolutely unlike anything else you have ever seen before. It is rendered in black and white like a classic noir film, with transient washes of color, mostly red, applied sparingly. The use of red and other colors doesn't track with the bloodletting, so the effect is even more compelling. Also, there is a continuous interplay between live action and computer animation which allows for a tremendous amount of freedom in creating the mood and telling the story. From the technical perspective of using camera angles to further both mood and storytelling, this may be one of the best films since Casablanca — again, speaking purely technically here. While I sat in my seat horrified at what I was watching, I couldn't bear to look away because the images are so arresting.

Sin City does tell a story. It has a beginning-middle-end, and there is a certain circularity to its episodic structure that leads you to a sense of completion at the end of the film. It has a hero (Bruce Willis — his best work in a while, oddly enough), a damsel in distress (Jessica Alba), and a plethora of unambiguous villains. Also, it has some complex characters existing — getting by the best they can — in the gray shadows between good and evil in their black and white world. Most impressive of these are Micky Rourke, who does a magnificent job as the anti-hero hero, and Rosario Dawson and Clive Owen, the nominal leaders of the prostitutes' revolt. Usually I don't bother to see movies about low-lifes. I hold with Aristotle that drama should concern only the noblest lives and ideas of humanity. But here I was drawn into the lives of these hard-bitten souls, and I was glad when some of the good ones survived, even if only to fight another day.

The element of storytelling in Sin City may be its ultimate salvation as a work of art. All the technical effects in the universe could not overcome my natural antipathy to such blatant slasher mayhem, if there were not a riveting human story being worked out on the screen. Other works by Robert Rodriguez, the principal director/screenwriter/producer of Sin City, have not really impressed me. I thought Desperado was a complete waste of time despite the presence of Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek, and lots of gunplay and explosions, which I normally go for in action-adventure movies. The fact that I did not get up and walk out of this gruesomely violent film after five minutes tells me that it is the storytelling ability of Frank Miller that makes the difference. Which is, I suppose, a compliment to Rodriguez, in that he was able to get out of the way and let Miller's graphic novel come to life on the screen.

Robert Rodriguez is an interesting guy. He lives and works, exclusively, in Austin, TX. He does kid films: the Spy Kids series, and the current Sharkboy & Lavagirl. Yet his movies for grown-ups contribute greatly to the derisive appellation "Hollyweird" used by myself and other politically conservative film critics. Rodriguez makes films in his own way, using a computer almost as much as a camera. He is also notorious in the movie business for consistently bringing his films in on or under budget, which I understand gives certain other directors the vapors. In fact, he was unusually generous while making this movie. He not only shared directing credit with Miller, but he also had Quentin Tarantino guest direct one episode of the movie. And in order to give credit where it's due, Rodriguez had to resign from the Directors' Guild of America because they have a one director credit per film rule. I cannot help but admire such a gesture.

Bottom line: I cannot and do not recommend this film because of its unrelenting graphic violence, but I also cannot exclude it from the corpus of cinematic art in the way I would do a Freddie-or-Jason piece of horror trash. Visually, and from a literary point of view, Sin City qualifies as a sort of masterpiece, flawed but compelling. And much to my relief, none of the worst images have lingered in my psyche in the intervening days, nor have I suffered, so far, from movie-induced nightmares. As always, your call.

Bonus review

New (to me) music from Jack Johnson and k d lang. Also, a new (to me) singer-songwriter-musician, Kathleen Edwards. I just picked up Jack Johnson's In Between Dreams album of last year, and I think it's his best work yet. There isn't one particular song that just slays me on this album, as there were on his first two, but the whole work hangs together and carries you along like riding an inner tube down the Russian river on a sunny summer day. For those of you who may not know him, Jack Johnson is a surfer from Santa Cruz who also plays guitar, sings and writes songs that blend folk-rock and light jazz vocals and instrumentation to, I think, rather delicious effect.

k d lang's Hymns of the 49th Parallel is her tribute to fellow Canadian artists, beginning with Joni Mitchell. However, it is her cover of the Leonard Cohen song Hallelujah that is absolutely haunting. You may have heard it on the radio, as I had done thanks to KFOG, but without catching the artist credit. I have said on more than one occasion that k d lang could sing the phonebook and make you weep, but this is the first album of hers since Ingenue that I have really enjoyed. Her foray into jazz has been beyond my ears to hear. While this is jazzy it has a lot of cover tunes that I know, so I was able to appreciate it wholeheartedly.

Finally, while I was browsing the cd bins I heard this delightful music playing and when I inquired at the counter the clerk turned me on to Kathleen Edwards. It is her music that I most want to share with y'all. As many of you already know, in popular music my taste runs more-or-less from the Indigo Girls at one end of the spectrum to Gwen Stefani at the other. Kathleen Edwards, in terms of general style, instrumentation and vocalization is more at the IG end. She has a voice that reminds me of bourbon and honey, and she can belt it out. The cd I picked up is entitled Back to Me, which is her second I believe. Her first album is called Failer. I rather imagine you will enjoy either one. Erin sez, check it out. (And thanks to D. & J. S. for the gift card that enabled me to afford this music.)