Sin City: You Can Be Too Loyal

Sin City looks unlike any movie I’ve ever seen before. Like the The
Incredibles
before it, it teaches us what comic book movies (I know The
Incredibles
wasn’t first a comic book, but that’s their inspiration) should
aspire to. They should render imagined worlds, not follow around guys in rubber
suits. It’s also the most effective use I’ve seen of an ‘all green screen’ movie,
which has no actual sets. In the past, I’ve found digital backgrounds to be
generally distracting. The heightened, stylized feel of the virtual backdrops
in Sin City enriched the film.

Sin City has balls, too. It’s all about guns, broads and the hard-boiled,
long-suffering anti-hero. What Sin City doesn’t have is a cohesive
plot. The trailer doesn’t tell you this, but the film is three separate short
films. They’re tangentially-related, but are essentially three stories, told
more or less in a serialized fashion. I was disappointed by this, and felt a
little misled by the film’s marketing. It’s like thinking you’re buying a novel
and ending up with a bunch of short stories. [more]

I assume these three stories map directly to the comic book. This is no surprise,
given that the books’ creator, Frank Miller, is credited as co-director. That
approach is great for the comics, but it doesn’t fly in the movies. Because
there are so many characters and so much plot to force into 126 minutes, the
film has no room to breath.

The best movies, in any genre, know when to pause. They stop for character
development, to foster subplots, to make us laugh and to mix up the pacing.
This makes any film, including action movies, better. Three examples:

  • The great, awkward restaurant scene between Francis McDermott’s Francis McDermott character
    and her old friend in Fargo.
  • The funniest scene in The Incredibles, where Edna Mode fills in
    Mrs. Incredible and shows off the costumes.
  • Any number of sequences in Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction.
    Tarantino over-uses the device, but they’re good examples.

In this movie, we meet 30-odd characters but never get to know them. That’s
fine for a comic book, but it’s unsatisfactory for a two-hour movie. I think
this is why I observed a disparity in the acting. The leading men–Mickey Rourke,
Bruce Willis and Clive Owen–had a crisp handle on their roles, while many of
the women–Rosario Dawson, Alexis Bledel and Jessica Alba (none are fantastic
performers to begin with)–really struggled. The men were playing archetypes,
while the women were playing against them.

Outside of its great style, Sin City has nothing new to show us. Noir
is a genre that’s, what, seventy years old. The script, the attitude and the
pacing are drawn directly from the genre without much reinvention. If you want
to see a more compelling, more even and more original noir film, check out Sin
City
‘s neighbour across the river, Dark
City
.

3 comments

  1. Thanks for the heads-up. I’ll probably (like Kingdom of Heaven) still see it, but only because I’m a sucker for visuals.

  2. Some things to take into consideration when viewing this film.

    1. This film only gets made if it stays true to the comic book, the deal to bring on Frank Miller as Co-director was part of getting Frank on board to actually allow this process to take place.
    2. The movie was made the way it was made in order to make the movie extremely cheaply so that it could be done outside of the Hollywood system and there fore get out of the ‘tweaking’ that takes place in order to broaden its mass appeal.
    3. This movie was made for fans of the comic book, and not for the general movie going audience. It was not a ‘lets see how many butt’s we can put in chairs’ project.

    The series that makes up sin city is 9 or 12 ‘stories’ I can not remember off of the top of my head and these are the first 3. I can see how not knowing this might through a causal viewer/non ‘Sin city comic’ fan off if that knowledge is not given ahead of time.

    Why would the number of characters being high and the brevity of the appearances be ok for a ‘comic book’ and not ok for a movie? It is a stylistic and story telling choice and not grounded in a medium. Could this just be a manifestation of expecting too little from a ‘comic book’ or having an approach to a movie that you prefer?

    I think you hit the nail on the head, but also slightly miss the point on why the ‘comic book’ and therefore the movies pacing was the way it is. As a huge fan of classic noir, and you may be too, I can tell you that the pacing of a good deal of these movies was fast will little time for reflection, or in most cases any down time at all. The point was to move along at a rapid frenetic pace and keep the plot twists coming. ‘The Maltese Falcon’ and ‘The Big Sleep’ are both good examples of this. The terse dialogue, the short scenes, and rapid fire plot twists were meant to keep the beat going, and challenge the audience to keep up.

    I think that this is where the comic was grounded and therefore the movie followed. Like it or not it was a choice made early on and stuck with.

Comments are closed.