Yes. I simply have not anything interesting to write about. Have been busy but not in any way that would create anything that could be remotely mistaken for fascinating. Alas.
Unless anyone wants something on the hilarity on the McCain-Palin combo. But The Daily Show does that better.
Friday, 24 October 2008
Sunday, 19 October 2008
Please Burn After Reading
The intro to the positive Phillip French review of Burn After Reading reads: A cast of morally bankrupt Americans descend into paranoia and madness in the Coens' brilliantly contrived comedy-thriller.
He's so very wrong.
This is the Coen Brothers worst film, is easily the worst film I've seen all year in the cinema and is high on the worst films on the decade.
I've defended the Coen brothers and their weaker films, defended Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers, found many good things in them. I love Miller's Crossing, Raising Arizona, Barton Fink, Big Lebowski among others. I'm a huge fan. Yet this film is taking the piss. I now know what those Star Wars fans meant by the "raping my childhood" line. Although this is more molesting my teenage auteur discovery-type of thing.
First thing I want to know if they were drunk when writing and directing this. I wonder because the script just wanders from scene to scene without any interest in plot or character. Actions occur, we having many scenes that simply wander without interest through locations without curiosity to what goes on with character. The film is incredibly tolerant of boredom. All the plots end up combining in ways that are obvious from the get-go and the film then ends, many characters left off-screen for their pay-off, like someone just turned off the light and went home, utterly disgusted.
The writing is better than the direction. There is no unconventional sequences, intriguing moments. The images are flat and vague. On the rare occasion that they use cinematic storytelling it seems like a rip-off of fifties Hitchcock rather than a bounce from it for some individualistic insanity. For example there's one repeating location, a park, which has various meetings, crying out for some visual imagination. Yet it remains a boring park. Inter-cutting between characters in scenes are awkward, ill-paced and ugly at times.
The acting is dire, especially from Malkovich, who doesn't even try. He's like a bad, bored Deniro performance, yet somehow tops late-era DeNiro in how vague, uninspired and deeply annoying one actor can be on the screen. Everyone is playing idiots yet all are painfully one-dimensional and almost impossible to give life to (Clooney's distinguishing feature is in regard to a sex-toy, which is an awful joke). Which leads to the dialogue, usually the Coen strong-point, here being TV-movie like, directed to monotone in many scenes, no-one seeming to be paying attention, acting scenes unshaped to give specific beats, are simply read without focus.
This is such a wretched mess that I'm furious that the Coens' are responsible.
He's so very wrong.
This is the Coen Brothers worst film, is easily the worst film I've seen all year in the cinema and is high on the worst films on the decade.
I've defended the Coen brothers and their weaker films, defended Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers, found many good things in them. I love Miller's Crossing, Raising Arizona, Barton Fink, Big Lebowski among others. I'm a huge fan. Yet this film is taking the piss. I now know what those Star Wars fans meant by the "raping my childhood" line. Although this is more molesting my teenage auteur discovery-type of thing.
First thing I want to know if they were drunk when writing and directing this. I wonder because the script just wanders from scene to scene without any interest in plot or character. Actions occur, we having many scenes that simply wander without interest through locations without curiosity to what goes on with character. The film is incredibly tolerant of boredom. All the plots end up combining in ways that are obvious from the get-go and the film then ends, many characters left off-screen for their pay-off, like someone just turned off the light and went home, utterly disgusted.
The writing is better than the direction. There is no unconventional sequences, intriguing moments. The images are flat and vague. On the rare occasion that they use cinematic storytelling it seems like a rip-off of fifties Hitchcock rather than a bounce from it for some individualistic insanity. For example there's one repeating location, a park, which has various meetings, crying out for some visual imagination. Yet it remains a boring park. Inter-cutting between characters in scenes are awkward, ill-paced and ugly at times.
The acting is dire, especially from Malkovich, who doesn't even try. He's like a bad, bored Deniro performance, yet somehow tops late-era DeNiro in how vague, uninspired and deeply annoying one actor can be on the screen. Everyone is playing idiots yet all are painfully one-dimensional and almost impossible to give life to (Clooney's distinguishing feature is in regard to a sex-toy, which is an awful joke). Which leads to the dialogue, usually the Coen strong-point, here being TV-movie like, directed to monotone in many scenes, no-one seeming to be paying attention, acting scenes unshaped to give specific beats, are simply read without focus.
This is such a wretched mess that I'm furious that the Coens' are responsible.
Thursday, 16 October 2008
Siege the book
The first novel I wrote, Siege, is now available at Lulu on book or download form (link available at Blog List). It was written a while ago, and I have tried to avoid revising it, save sorting a few mistakes. I'm quite proud of it, am glad to have it available.
Another novel The Study, will be available from next month, same format.
Of the two The Study is the easier read, is a little more commercial, is based around family dynamics while being a thriller. Siege is a little more ambitious, is darker. The first six pages of Siege are available at LULU and I'll probably post a few other examples soon.
Another novel The Study, will be available from next month, same format.
Of the two The Study is the easier read, is a little more commercial, is based around family dynamics while being a thriller. Siege is a little more ambitious, is darker. The first six pages of Siege are available at LULU and I'll probably post a few other examples soon.
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Polanski documentary
This will be brief. As a Roman Polanski fan, I watched the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted And Desired, and was appalled by it.
The subject matter was very interesting but the film-makers managed to do nothing with it. A good chunk of the film was showing Polanski's past, which tended to paint his life and interests in a very obvious fashion, showed information that you could get with a little research without comment worth a damn, managed to find no intriguing opinion on him, simply commented that he liked to party and made dark films, that he had an awful past, that his wife and unborn child was killed.
The rape case was a mess in how it was handled. The film seemed to avoid trying for objectivity, was stacked completely in favour of Polanski. The crime was pushed to the background for so much of the documentary, save for a few talking heads of the victim and the testimony, which was typed white testimony against black background. That simply wasn't good enough. This was a man who had sex with a thirteen year old girl. And yet the film was far more focused on how the judge was messing with Polanski, how poorly he was treated, how he couldn't proceed with his next film, yet they seemed to be letting him off with probation for a very serious crime, which he should have gone to jail for. The judge looked to be scared of giving Polanski jail time, yet not wanting to give him jail time, which was a mess of course. But it wasn't worth half the film, wasn't interesting in itself, nor in its handling, as it became special pleading for a sex offender. If this was not a famous film director, all the defences of Polanski would be seen as ridiculous and he would be thrown in jail, seen as a sex pest. That happens to others who do this horrible crime. But the film focuses away from that, from any objectivity, on a minor element of a crazy judge, the fear of jail due to his actions causing Polanski to flee, rather than face the crime itself and the way the law was bending to suit the defendant, because he was a talented film director. A focus on sex offenders, a contrast of the handling of the case to other sex offenders would have made a much better and more honest film.
So film never takes any intelligent stance, in what is a very difficult subject matter, never truly gets into the horror of the crime, nor chastises Polanski. Basically it's a complete disgrace.
The subject matter was very interesting but the film-makers managed to do nothing with it. A good chunk of the film was showing Polanski's past, which tended to paint his life and interests in a very obvious fashion, showed information that you could get with a little research without comment worth a damn, managed to find no intriguing opinion on him, simply commented that he liked to party and made dark films, that he had an awful past, that his wife and unborn child was killed.
The rape case was a mess in how it was handled. The film seemed to avoid trying for objectivity, was stacked completely in favour of Polanski. The crime was pushed to the background for so much of the documentary, save for a few talking heads of the victim and the testimony, which was typed white testimony against black background. That simply wasn't good enough. This was a man who had sex with a thirteen year old girl. And yet the film was far more focused on how the judge was messing with Polanski, how poorly he was treated, how he couldn't proceed with his next film, yet they seemed to be letting him off with probation for a very serious crime, which he should have gone to jail for. The judge looked to be scared of giving Polanski jail time, yet not wanting to give him jail time, which was a mess of course. But it wasn't worth half the film, wasn't interesting in itself, nor in its handling, as it became special pleading for a sex offender. If this was not a famous film director, all the defences of Polanski would be seen as ridiculous and he would be thrown in jail, seen as a sex pest. That happens to others who do this horrible crime. But the film focuses away from that, from any objectivity, on a minor element of a crazy judge, the fear of jail due to his actions causing Polanski to flee, rather than face the crime itself and the way the law was bending to suit the defendant, because he was a talented film director. A focus on sex offenders, a contrast of the handling of the case to other sex offenders would have made a much better and more honest film.
So film never takes any intelligent stance, in what is a very difficult subject matter, never truly gets into the horror of the crime, nor chastises Polanski. Basically it's a complete disgrace.
Monday, 13 October 2008
Documentary Is On Youtube
Cinderella In A Small Castle, a documentary lasting about 35 minutes, is on youtube. It follows Stagefright Community Group putting on a production at a historic site, Dundonald Castle. I'm pleased with the film and hope people will enjoy it.
Sunday, 12 October 2008
Southland Tales And South Park Indy 4 Episode
This one will ramble incoherently.
I finally saw Southland Tales, the Richard Kelly follow-up to Donnie Darko. Despite a critical mauling, I found it to be pretty damn good. It's kinda like Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette, in that it has a certain style and outlook that will either be addictive or alienating. It's completely tied to the outlook of one person so it is distinctive. Ina few years I think it'll be a big cult movie.
Southland Tales is a response to the patriot act in America, an absurdest, sprawling tale through LA, on the eve of the 2008 election. It has crazy actors, right-wing nuts, Marxist extremists, porn stars, a big brother computer watching all, the war in Iraq that creating drafting, and a strange new energy source that replaces oil. It's also a mystery, about what happened to an actor who mysteriously disappeared for a few days in the desert. There's a lot in it and I won't say much more about the plot. It's a film its best to see without knowing much about. It's got this weird atmosphere, an obsession with doubles, duality, lies. Sometimes its a bit literal in the script but the atmosphere makes it work. It does have a relaxed view of its own parallel world, never over-sells it.
The film seems influenced by other's work but not in an annoying way. There's some obvious ties to DePalma and Body Double (with actors who don't know what they are, porn stars, artifice and reality obsessions tied to pop culture that alienates people, as well as a musical number half-way through the film), Alex Cox with Repo Man (with the end section) and Death And The Compass (a stylised film investigating a fascist regime, with outsiders tied to the corrupt, alienating system, a mystery tied to lead character) to John Carpenter with In The Mouth Of Madness (a book that tells the future, so that the lead character keeps finding his future and clues from it before it happens), to both They Live and Escape From LA (both satirical views of LA, They Live attacking the establishment from the down and outs and Escape From LA with the end of America coming while the lead character wanders through an absurdest, self-absorbed hell-hole) While I spotted influences like this through the film they never took over and felt forced. The film felt tied to its director's obsessions.
Southland Tales stars The Rock (who's interestingly weird throughout, with lots of nervous tics), Sean William Scott (who's surprisingly good, very focused as a depressed character) and Sarah Michelle Geller (as an idiot porn star, again far better than I would have expected from previous work). It has a lot of other character actors, including Wood Harris from The Wire and Amy Poehler from Saturday Night Live (as a pair of entertainer/Marxists).
To South Park. I'm not sure who has seen the already notorious episode, where essentially George Lucas and Steven Spielberg rape Indiana Jones (to suggest how some movie-goers felt like watching the new film). We had a Deliverance and The Accused parodies. We have George Lucas tonguing Indy's nipples. Spielberg as the hick in deliverance who does the squeal like a pig deed. A stormtrooper is buggered. It's really childish but also very funny.
Now I wasn't too bothered by Indy 4. A lot of people were. I also liked two of the Star Wars prequels. I honestly thought it was about on par with last Crusade, had more imagination than last crusade but a weaker script and dialogue. I don't think it deserves the hatred it getting in places, is being attacked because of how good the first two films were. Compared to films like Tropic Thunder or The Incredible Hulk, it looks pretty damn good. I actually liked the Mayans and the aliens, liked the nuclear town. I very much like the fifties setting, with the red menace, alien obsessions (even though its was inter-dimensional beings), which felt very George Lucas. Liked the killer ants and psychic villain. Didn't like the ease in which Indy escaped from situations, especially at the beginning, or that the film took forever to get going. But it was fine.
Especially when compared to sequels to other great films.
Dirty Harry. Four sequels. All Awful. Unwatchable trash every one.
Die Hard 2 and Die Hard 4.0. Awful bastardisations of the first film and its characters. Die Hard 2 is especially terrible, is barely watchable. Only With A Vengeance is any good, and that falls away near the end.
Alien Resurrection and the 2 Alien Vrs Predator films. Aren't these films a disgrace on such a great original.
Terminator 3. Terrible. Just ignores the characters and set-up from the first two films and spits in the eye of the audience for much of the running time.
Lethal Weapon 3 & 4. No plots. Just people jabbering loudly and shooting a lot. Nothing makes much sense. Horribly sentimental and borderline fascist with the utter glorification of the cops.
Halloween Sequels. Nothing else needs to be said.
There are many more but I don't want to get into that. It would get depressing. These are the ones that come to mind fast.
End of rambling blog.
I finally saw Southland Tales, the Richard Kelly follow-up to Donnie Darko. Despite a critical mauling, I found it to be pretty damn good. It's kinda like Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette, in that it has a certain style and outlook that will either be addictive or alienating. It's completely tied to the outlook of one person so it is distinctive. Ina few years I think it'll be a big cult movie.
Southland Tales is a response to the patriot act in America, an absurdest, sprawling tale through LA, on the eve of the 2008 election. It has crazy actors, right-wing nuts, Marxist extremists, porn stars, a big brother computer watching all, the war in Iraq that creating drafting, and a strange new energy source that replaces oil. It's also a mystery, about what happened to an actor who mysteriously disappeared for a few days in the desert. There's a lot in it and I won't say much more about the plot. It's a film its best to see without knowing much about. It's got this weird atmosphere, an obsession with doubles, duality, lies. Sometimes its a bit literal in the script but the atmosphere makes it work. It does have a relaxed view of its own parallel world, never over-sells it.
The film seems influenced by other's work but not in an annoying way. There's some obvious ties to DePalma and Body Double (with actors who don't know what they are, porn stars, artifice and reality obsessions tied to pop culture that alienates people, as well as a musical number half-way through the film), Alex Cox with Repo Man (with the end section) and Death And The Compass (a stylised film investigating a fascist regime, with outsiders tied to the corrupt, alienating system, a mystery tied to lead character) to John Carpenter with In The Mouth Of Madness (a book that tells the future, so that the lead character keeps finding his future and clues from it before it happens), to both They Live and Escape From LA (both satirical views of LA, They Live attacking the establishment from the down and outs and Escape From LA with the end of America coming while the lead character wanders through an absurdest, self-absorbed hell-hole) While I spotted influences like this through the film they never took over and felt forced. The film felt tied to its director's obsessions.
Southland Tales stars The Rock (who's interestingly weird throughout, with lots of nervous tics), Sean William Scott (who's surprisingly good, very focused as a depressed character) and Sarah Michelle Geller (as an idiot porn star, again far better than I would have expected from previous work). It has a lot of other character actors, including Wood Harris from The Wire and Amy Poehler from Saturday Night Live (as a pair of entertainer/Marxists).
To South Park. I'm not sure who has seen the already notorious episode, where essentially George Lucas and Steven Spielberg rape Indiana Jones (to suggest how some movie-goers felt like watching the new film). We had a Deliverance and The Accused parodies. We have George Lucas tonguing Indy's nipples. Spielberg as the hick in deliverance who does the squeal like a pig deed. A stormtrooper is buggered. It's really childish but also very funny.
Now I wasn't too bothered by Indy 4. A lot of people were. I also liked two of the Star Wars prequels. I honestly thought it was about on par with last Crusade, had more imagination than last crusade but a weaker script and dialogue. I don't think it deserves the hatred it getting in places, is being attacked because of how good the first two films were. Compared to films like Tropic Thunder or The Incredible Hulk, it looks pretty damn good. I actually liked the Mayans and the aliens, liked the nuclear town. I very much like the fifties setting, with the red menace, alien obsessions (even though its was inter-dimensional beings), which felt very George Lucas. Liked the killer ants and psychic villain. Didn't like the ease in which Indy escaped from situations, especially at the beginning, or that the film took forever to get going. But it was fine.
Especially when compared to sequels to other great films.
Dirty Harry. Four sequels. All Awful. Unwatchable trash every one.
Die Hard 2 and Die Hard 4.0. Awful bastardisations of the first film and its characters. Die Hard 2 is especially terrible, is barely watchable. Only With A Vengeance is any good, and that falls away near the end.
Alien Resurrection and the 2 Alien Vrs Predator films. Aren't these films a disgrace on such a great original.
Terminator 3. Terrible. Just ignores the characters and set-up from the first two films and spits in the eye of the audience for much of the running time.
Lethal Weapon 3 & 4. No plots. Just people jabbering loudly and shooting a lot. Nothing makes much sense. Horribly sentimental and borderline fascist with the utter glorification of the cops.
Halloween Sequels. Nothing else needs to be said.
There are many more but I don't want to get into that. It would get depressing. These are the ones that come to mind fast.
End of rambling blog.
Tuesday, 7 October 2008
Cinderella In A Small Castle
That is the title for my new documentary, which is based on a community theatre group performing at the castle in 2005. I've had the footage for some time and am now editing it. It should last about 35 minutes.
Watching Your Own Film
So I ended up to braving up to watching my film again after months away (I never watched in in order as I couldn't sit through the first third again). I found it to be a lot better than I expected, as you expect to be wincing a lot and that really didn't happen. Was very happy with it generally. There areas where I think I made mistakes but it does represent a lot of what I wanted to do, seen more clearly now as I have a bit of a distance. I saw a few things to change (essentially there were two sound cues that I thought get rid of or tone down) and the end credits sound to change to make the resolution more ambiguous. But generally the framing and the way things were set-up worked the way I wanted. It was good to see scenes play where I don't remember every moment so there was some spontaneity where you think, that's what I had in mind.
I ended up watching the first third last. It was the nightmarish bit of editing and while I like most of it, it was where I saw a few edits that I sweated over that I think of as the weakest bit of the film. A general rule I found, the less edits in a scene the more I liked it. It was only really one or two areas where I wound change if I had something that would fit. And I don't have something to fit so can't change them obviously. I might be over-reacting to something I just hate tonight. To be honest I find that what I see as the weaker moments are placed close to strong moments so that kind of covers a few sins. It does make me think that less editing and careful camera work is better. The things I disliked would have worked if I had got a better, calm visual. Generally I feel pretty good and upbeat about the film, which is a nice feeling, especially after all the work put into it.
Have been editing a documentary on a play at Dundonald castle. What was supposed to be 20 minutes is now thirty minutes with another five minutes to be loaded up into computer. My plan made by viewing footage worked well as a spine and rest was improvised with material available. Its a bit more conventional than other stuff but is fun to do.
I ended up watching the first third last. It was the nightmarish bit of editing and while I like most of it, it was where I saw a few edits that I sweated over that I think of as the weakest bit of the film. A general rule I found, the less edits in a scene the more I liked it. It was only really one or two areas where I wound change if I had something that would fit. And I don't have something to fit so can't change them obviously. I might be over-reacting to something I just hate tonight. To be honest I find that what I see as the weaker moments are placed close to strong moments so that kind of covers a few sins. It does make me think that less editing and careful camera work is better. The things I disliked would have worked if I had got a better, calm visual. Generally I feel pretty good and upbeat about the film, which is a nice feeling, especially after all the work put into it.
Have been editing a documentary on a play at Dundonald castle. What was supposed to be 20 minutes is now thirty minutes with another five minutes to be loaded up into computer. My plan made by viewing footage worked well as a spine and rest was improvised with material available. Its a bit more conventional than other stuff but is fun to do.
Thursday, 2 October 2008
The Wire and Homicide
Still thinking about The Wire.
One of the interesting cross-overs to Homicide, which Wire creator David Simon started working on late in season 4, are certain character beats that Simon seemed to find interest in and re-arranged to suit his own purposes. It's not a lazy retread, is simply seeming to use elements of character and situation that seemed to have a pulse that could be re-arranged for other purposes. If you know Homicide, some characters in The Wire are descendants of a kind.
From late season 4 until end of season 6 episode "Fallen Angels", Homicide had an expansive drug war act, it tied to the actions and frustrations by some of its detectives fighting for arrests in the Baltimore drug war. It was a dynamic that was the spine of many late Homicide episodes, while David Simon was working on the show (although the show-runner was Tom Fontana, and that plot was unlikely fully a Simon creation) Although this plot-line went on a little too long in season 6, it had many great episodes and moments, including the dubious shooting down of drug kingpin Luther Mahoney (the actor who played Mahoney, in a humorous touch by David Simon, plays the ME, cutting up all the bodies dropped throughout five seasons of the Wire). The dubious shooting of Mahoney was Simon's idea.
The central pairing of The Wire, McNulty and Bunk, do seem to have ties to the Kellerman and Lewis partnership of Homicide (these were the two in the middle of the Homicide drug war). You have a white cop who's intelligent, divorced, good at the job but capable of staggering bad judgement and paranoia (McNulty stages a fake serial killer to get more money for an investigation, also alienates his bosses and friends at every turn out of selfishness and need to feel that he is pure and intelligent while they are fools, while Kellerman makes the bad shooting of Mahoney, almost kills himself due to wounded pride, gets a corrupt judge killed by his actions, as well as his police office shot up). McNulty and Kellerman are Irish-American, cause major damage in a Baltimore drug war that obsess them, yet it is something they know they can't really affect, as that world and its problems have causes that are far beyond what they do in their job. They are always telling people how proud they are to be cops, to be on the hunt of some kind. They are loud about passions and hatreds. Yet they over-react, cause damage to themselves, colleagues, the police department and end up off the force without even getting their pension. With both there seems to be personal demons that are being exorcised through the drug war, is some sort of psychological addiction. Their partners, Bunk and Lewis, are African-American career police with goatees, who know the limit of the job, look on appalled at what their white colleagues manage to do. But they are still affected, eventually haunted by their world, drawn in personally by their partner's recklessness. To be honest, one of the elements I found to be a tad predictable about The Wire is suspecting McNulty's fate, due to how he was working in a lot of ways in relation to Kellerman. (I'm wondering if both were based on a real life cop)
It's quite interesting how much repeats yet in other ways how it eventually develops. The Wire cop McNulty, in what seems to be a darker show, more expansive show, that takes on press, politics, schools, the docks, escapes with an easier fate. He is thrown off the force but has a family to fall back on, seems at peace with not being a policeman, still has ties to his old cop community, even though they don't work together any more. Kellerman was a character who loses his friends, is hated by most of the police for what occurred in the drug war, never really had a family that was worthwhile, is obviously a haunted near-alcoholic.
Two excellent idiot-obsessive cop characters from Baltimore.
One of the interesting cross-overs to Homicide, which Wire creator David Simon started working on late in season 4, are certain character beats that Simon seemed to find interest in and re-arranged to suit his own purposes. It's not a lazy retread, is simply seeming to use elements of character and situation that seemed to have a pulse that could be re-arranged for other purposes. If you know Homicide, some characters in The Wire are descendants of a kind.
From late season 4 until end of season 6 episode "Fallen Angels", Homicide had an expansive drug war act, it tied to the actions and frustrations by some of its detectives fighting for arrests in the Baltimore drug war. It was a dynamic that was the spine of many late Homicide episodes, while David Simon was working on the show (although the show-runner was Tom Fontana, and that plot was unlikely fully a Simon creation) Although this plot-line went on a little too long in season 6, it had many great episodes and moments, including the dubious shooting down of drug kingpin Luther Mahoney (the actor who played Mahoney, in a humorous touch by David Simon, plays the ME, cutting up all the bodies dropped throughout five seasons of the Wire). The dubious shooting of Mahoney was Simon's idea.
The central pairing of The Wire, McNulty and Bunk, do seem to have ties to the Kellerman and Lewis partnership of Homicide (these were the two in the middle of the Homicide drug war). You have a white cop who's intelligent, divorced, good at the job but capable of staggering bad judgement and paranoia (McNulty stages a fake serial killer to get more money for an investigation, also alienates his bosses and friends at every turn out of selfishness and need to feel that he is pure and intelligent while they are fools, while Kellerman makes the bad shooting of Mahoney, almost kills himself due to wounded pride, gets a corrupt judge killed by his actions, as well as his police office shot up). McNulty and Kellerman are Irish-American, cause major damage in a Baltimore drug war that obsess them, yet it is something they know they can't really affect, as that world and its problems have causes that are far beyond what they do in their job. They are always telling people how proud they are to be cops, to be on the hunt of some kind. They are loud about passions and hatreds. Yet they over-react, cause damage to themselves, colleagues, the police department and end up off the force without even getting their pension. With both there seems to be personal demons that are being exorcised through the drug war, is some sort of psychological addiction. Their partners, Bunk and Lewis, are African-American career police with goatees, who know the limit of the job, look on appalled at what their white colleagues manage to do. But they are still affected, eventually haunted by their world, drawn in personally by their partner's recklessness. To be honest, one of the elements I found to be a tad predictable about The Wire is suspecting McNulty's fate, due to how he was working in a lot of ways in relation to Kellerman. (I'm wondering if both were based on a real life cop)
It's quite interesting how much repeats yet in other ways how it eventually develops. The Wire cop McNulty, in what seems to be a darker show, more expansive show, that takes on press, politics, schools, the docks, escapes with an easier fate. He is thrown off the force but has a family to fall back on, seems at peace with not being a policeman, still has ties to his old cop community, even though they don't work together any more. Kellerman was a character who loses his friends, is hated by most of the police for what occurred in the drug war, never really had a family that was worthwhile, is obviously a haunted near-alcoholic.
Two excellent idiot-obsessive cop characters from Baltimore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)