21 January 2016

BORDERLANDS

If a body wanted to be unnecessarily reductive in every possible way, one could say something like: Sicario is the Mexican drug cartel version of Zero Dark Thirty, with Emily Blunt replacing Jessica Chastain as the woman driven to the breaking point in competing with violent male nihilism. I say, let's not be that reductive. But let's concede that if necessary, we could be.

Blunt plays Kate Macer, an FBI agent we first meet leading a raid in Arizona against a house of suspected cartel-linked kidnappers. Her performance on this (and, presumably, earlier) missions puts her at the front of the line, when the CIA, in the form of Matt Graver (Josh Brolin), comes looking for FBI assistance in forming a multinational sting to find and capture Manuel Díaz, a major figure in the cartels. And from here, we can talk about the film in one of two ways. It is, on the one hand, a procedural about the U.S. government's black ops efforts in Mexico, one that ponders with grave horror the excesses and flatly illegal shenanigans perpetrated by Matt and his Mexican partner, Alejeandro Gillick (Benicio Del Toro), viewing them through the increasingly nauseated and righteously angry eyes of Kate. It is, on the other hand, the closely-related story of a series of moral quandaries lived by Kate, as she grows thus nauseated.

This is the main place that the Zero Dark Thirty analogy holds water. Like that film, Sicario perpetually feels like it should be read predominately through a lens of political commentary (the key difference: ZDT was noticeably allergic to real-world politics, while Taylor Sheridan's script for Sicario seems quite convinced that it is first and above all a political document); like that film, it's a great deal more interesting as a character study. Kate is not, in fairness, an all-time great example of writing; it's essential to Sicario's basic function that she is almost exclusively a reactive character, forced to witness depraved acts and grow despondent at her inability to stave them off. And this is true of the depravities committed by the cartels as much as by the amoral government officials attempting to combat the cartels using nearly equivalent violence - the film's opening scene sets the tone nicely enough, with Kate and her partner Reggie Wayne (Daniel Kaluuya) discovering a cache of rotten plastic-wrapped corpses in the walls of a house, with Blunt's face washing out with a neatly-controlled look of disgust and sadness (Reggie, for his part, drifts in and out of the rest of the film as a sort of Chorus; it's a bit awkward, frankly, but it helps the movie immensely to have one other human being who isn't some breed of psychopath or sociopath).

Granting that Kate is a largely inert figure in the grand scope of things, she's still a magnificent protagonist, benefiting greatly from a perfect performance by Blunt, who keeps winding herself tighter and tighter along the course of the film's two hours. In the film's tensest moments, her whole body practically quivers; at other points, she collapses like a rag doll, frequently using cigarettes like an anchor to keep herself upright (Sicario's use of cigarettes as an organising motif is fascinatingly dated, but note-perfect; it's a keen reminder that, deadly though they be, there's nothing that can compare for giving actors interesting pieces of business with their hands and face). Playing an arc with almost no action to drive it, Blunt is obliged to expressively inhabit a series of subtly-shaded variations on just a few emotional states, and she does so extraordinarily well, providing a deeply compelling character in her own right as well as serving as the moral bellwether for Sicario's plunge into wretchedness. Brolin and Del Toro both give sturdy supporting roles - after a second viewing, much more deft turns than I'd credited either one of them with at first - but they're shadows next to Blunt.

Outside of her dominating performance, Sicario, under the rock-solid control of director Denis Villeneuve, trots out a host of finely-tuned formal elements to augment the basic thrust of looming, onrushing chaos that Blunt responds to so well. It is, truly, one of 2015's best top-to-bottom exercises in film craftsmanship. Joe Walker's editing is full of little pounces: moments where the action stretches and stretches in weirdly slowed-down moments until a spattering of quick cuts drives us through their climaxes (one particularly great moment comes near the end, a dinner scene that's absolutely one of the year's most perfectly tense moments). Roger Deakins's cinematography is unsurprisingly top-notch; it's less bold in its exploration of the particular textures of digital cinematography than his work on Skyfall or Villeneuve's Prisoners, and it's certainly true that the central conceit of the images - making the Mexican and Arizonan landscape and sky wash out to an equally dead shade of white - is neither terribly innovative, nor any real test of Deakins's skill. But it's still flawlessly executed, and when the action shifts to night, there's a shining, sharp chilliness to the imagery that's both beautiful and menacing.

The film's real strength, though, lies in its use of sound. The mix is full of muffled noises that surround the characters and drift out into the distance; the vastness of the empty, dusty exteriors is total and crushing, and the interiors (especially the FBI) are stifling. Even better is Jóhann Jóhannsson's score, if we can call it that; the music here is mindlessly atonal, dominated by a bassline throbbing from the opening (a black screen with droning notes) right to the penultimate scene. Honestly, for all that the whole film is smartly put together, the music and Blunt's performance are all it really needs: the audio causes a blanket of unsettling dread, the lead actor responds and amplifies that dread.

Now, having said all of that, Sicario suffers from one pretty severe shortcoming: it it is merciless. There's very little hope to any of this, and virtually nothing to draw from it: awful, violent people are awful and violent, and good people can (and should) be horrified by this, but there's no meaningful way to stop it. Happily, the film cuts off at a reasonable enough length (and to me, it feels shorter than it is) that it's not abject, but it's still basically suffocating and depressing. Immaculately made, and boasting one of 2015's greatest performances, so by all means I am pleased to have suffered through it; but there is, ultimately, a limit to how artistically meaningful something so fixated on agony can possibly be.

8/10

15 comments:

  1. I wanted to like this more as the critics promised a Michael Mann style building of tension and crescendo of action, but I was never thrilled to that extra degree. The opening sequence for instance seems to have horrified viewers far more than I but I don't know - was it really so grisly when every network forensic drama grows ever gorier? (And you've seen Hannibal right?)

    You're right about Blunt. She is terrific and reminded me of Jodie Foster, wringing a pretty blank, reactive, young female FBI agent for all the distress it was worth. The image that stays with me from the film isn't really any of Deakins' artistry but rather Emily Blunt's English rose face being mashed into the filth and squalor - hey not subtle but gets the job done wonderfully!

    My biggest problem with the film Tim is that because this director specialises in an ultra-sinecre treatment of these B movie plots, playing a kind of very well fought round of cliche whack-a-mole, that when the odd one remains rearing its ugly head, it really stands out. I'm thinking specifically of the crucial moment of realisation that made me want to scream in the cinema, "Of course that's the only reason you're here!" That element really jarred with me against the realistic setting and Blunt's intellect.

    Hey good film though. Philosophically sound. The War on Terror is a bad, sick, overextended joke.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I can't lie when Johann Johannsson's droning score came on during the Juarez border scene, it just sounded so much like Kanye West's "I Am a God" that my mind kept reminding me of lyrics from it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's just so. Inert.

    It finally comes to life in that last segment, when it straight up abandons its Faux Starling to focus on Alejandro. I loved that part, and I liked the beginning, and everything else ranged from the mediocre and tactically suspect to crushingly, crushingly boring.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I totally agree on the inert feeling, Hunter, but that's part of what made the movie work so well on me. The opening forty minutes or so--lasting all the way up through the sequence on the Bridge of the Americas--had the effect of a sustained waking nightmare, with the score and editing giving the feeling of something going progressively more wrong and spinning out of control, with neither Kate nor us as the audience able to do anything about it. It's as close as a cinematic equivalent of being chased while unable to run as I can remember (hence the waking nightmare part). Great review.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Did you ever get around to reviewing Enemy? That movie still makes no sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "there is, ultimately, a limit to how artistically meaningful something so fixated on agony can possibly be"

    Kind of perplexed by your allegiance to this claim, here and in the 'Revenant' review. It seems to handicap against a fairly wide swath of possible art experience, and also to present as an unduly focal criteria the promise that a film be joyful and redeeming. I don't think either of these films "rubs our nose" in agony without repaying us in the joys of form, narrative, craft.

    After all, a film can still be a "joy" (heavy scare quotes here) in its own way without being upbeat--aren't, say, Mulholland Drive and Irreversible key recent examples of this? These are divisive films, I realize (the latter in particular), and thus maybe not the most compelling counter-examples, but suffice it to say each tells a uniquely cinematic story that confirms the magic of the medium, and each is *for me* a 10/10, with no "this bummed me out" handicap.


    ReplyDelete
  7. Again, I am perplexed by the anti violence statement near the end. Are you starting to get soft in your 30s, Tim?

    Why does it matter if a movie is bleak and hopeless? Some things are. Holding a movie's nature against itself seems like a pointless excerise. I understand being morally disturbed if it's something like the torture porn that glamorizes it, but Sicaria uses its violence for the exact opposite effect. We're supposed to be horrified and outraged because that's how those things work: they are horrifying and outrageous.

    Wouldn't sugarcoating it with bullshit optimism and Hollywood happy endings just demean the point?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I would say that the problem with some films' use of bleakness or hopelessness is defeatism. Bleakness can horrify or outrage, but there's no room for horror or outrage, or the power that comes with either, in defeatism.

    With Sicario I think the end makes it more horrifying than defeatist; if it was really defeatist then I think Blunt's character would have killed del Toro's character. Instead she remains principled, but is ineffectual in being principled. It does kind of straddle the line, though, with how utterly inevitable some things seem to be, and there is some ambiguity in that last scene.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah, that whole "there is, ultimately, a limit to how artistically meaningful something so fixated on agony can possibly be" business is a bit perplexing to me. Cause, you know, I kind of AGREE with it--and yet, you, Tim, CONSTANTLY champion movies that sound absolutely horrific to me, like they'd make me want to kill myself. I just wonder what it is about Sicario specifically that rubs you the wrong way.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Amidst all the comparisons to Clarice Starling and Zero Dark Thirty's Maya, I'm surprised people aren't talking about how our heroine is knocked out for act three and then told to move to Middle America while Men Do What Must Be Done. it is admittedly a novel twist and probably better for her soul, but it's hard to imagine that happening if she was male.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I was surprised by the last sentence as well, but after further consideration I can't think of any movie purely fixated on suffering that couldn't benefit from a more nuanced opinion of the human experience, and while saying something is bad and broken is legitimate and worthwhile even without offering a solution - ideally you would offer a solution.

    On the other hand, I think when people try to bring shadings of idealism to art thats heavy on suffering, they run the risk of romanticizing suffering, and painting said suffering as essential to spiritual catharsis or w/e. That's occasionally true on a small and individual level, but on the whole I dislike that mentality (it's my main problem with the Christ narrative.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Everyone compares Sicario with Zero Dark Thirty, and that's totally valid, but I was struck more by it's similarity to No Country for Old Men, as well as to Breaking Bad. I later saw the movie '71, and found it to be very similar as well.

    I was gripped by Sicario all the way through, and I found it to be crafted with brilliance at every level of the production except possibly the script). However, it seemed to me to be trying to say something meaningful about the War n Drugs, and whether it was good or not seemed to be heavily tied to me believing what it had to say about world politics. And unlike with ZDT, which seems to have been pretty rigorously fact-checked, and at least stimulated conversation, I'm not sure I trust Sicario. Am I really supposed to believe that a shoot-out on a packed Bridge of the Americas in today's immigration climate wouldn't garner any media attention *at all*? Am I supposed to be disturbed that Brolin and Del Toro, gasp, question illegal immigrants? I dunno, it's weird.

    With No Country for Old Men, the Heart of Darkness tale was put front and center, and crossing the border into Mexico to confront hell was seen to be symbolic and metaphysical, following Cormac McCarthy, but Sicario seems to find Mexico to be literally hell on earth in a way that makes me uncomfortable and skeptical. It can't decide if it's journalism or apocalyptic vision.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I loved this movie. It's cynical, to be sure, but the film is smart as to how it uses that cynicism to inform its thematic intentions. It strikes me as a kind of post 9/11 "Chinatown."

    The film could have ended with Benicio del Toro saying "Forget it, Kate. It's Mexico," as he walked away.

    ReplyDelete
  14. True Stories from the Lives of Reviewers: I got to the last paragraph and realised I'd written a 10/10 review for a movie I had no intention whatsoever of giving more than 8/10. Thought to myself for a moment about where to justify knocking away those two points. "Well, it's kind of depressing without any purpose, isn't it?", I concluded.

    If I were going to work double-time to excuse myself, it would be by concurring with Stephen's "can't decide if it's journalism or apocalyptic vision" thought. Then I'd probably ground my objection to this and The Revenant, in contrast to my contentment when virtually the same topics are explored in Bone Tomahawk and No Country for Old Men, is that the latter two offer (IMO) a vision of how cruelty fits into human experience, the former just offer the cruelty. Though even that might be selling Sicario short.

    ReplyDelete
  15. To StephenM: " Am I really supposed to believe that a shoot-out on a packed Bridge of the Americas in today's immigration climate wouldn't garner any media attention *at all*? "

    Yes. A lot of people don't know the extent to which US media downplay the violence in Latin American countries. When I see US citizens visit Guatemala, they are struck when they hear how violent the country is, and when I went to the US, CNN and similar news outlets barely said anything about drug and gang violence and give the impression that Islamic terrorism is far worse when in fact the narcos and mareros of Latin America kill just as much people if not more, and in equally gruesome ways too. You can always go read a UN report on violence in Latin America if you don't believe in what Sicario shows.

    ReplyDelete

Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.

Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.