I think the best part of Michael Mann’s Heat is how ruthless the criminals are but at the same time you are kind of hoping old Robert D makes it to the plane. Throughout the movie, I seem to find myself rooting for who ever is on screen at the moment.

It is also an exception in that the criminals are humanized without being victims, the crime being a funny ‘victimless’ crime (like a classic heist caper), nor are the cops bad guys.

Back around 1971 I took a college course in WESTERN MOVIES. At the beginning of the course, the instructor said that the old westerns are long gone, that in today’s movies the good guys are just about what the bad guys used to be and the bad guys are really bad. For instance, a ‘hero’ may sleep with one worman while the bad guys rapes 30 women. There are no more Bible-quoting, moral good-guy heroes. He was right, and things have been getting worse through the years. America is in terrible shape now and we need strong, moral heroes, not flawed people who say and do vicious things because the public has become so accustomed to it.

Andrew, I too wanted De Niro to get away, primarily because he is so utterly humanized in the movie, not just a blank-slate career criminal. They end it well, though, providing both he and Pacino with a kind of mutual respect and human connection right at the end.

One of the things I really love about Inside Man is that (spoiler!) the crooks do completely get away with it, and the movie has no interest in censuring the audience for being on their side.

There are exceptions- like the Ladykillers- but in general I’m almost always disappointed when the crooks get caught in a heist movie. It’s one thing when it’s The Killing, and that’s the whole point, but broadly the sense that Evildoers Will Be Caught feels like a leftover from the Production Code era, where that was official policy. After all, most of the financial sector is run by people breaking laws on a much bigger and crueler scale than any bank robber, and somehow they never seem to get caught- why can’t I indulge in the fantasy of someone getting some back?

(This is one of the many, many reasons why you should stop at the first Ocean’s Eleven movie.)

@Jim

Wait, our morals have become degraded because our depictions of our history now have flawed heroes? I mean… you realize people were doing pretty horrible things to one another long before Clint Eastwood, right?

There are no more Bible-quoting, moral good-guy heroes.

Thank God for the separation of church and cinema.

“The Jokers” – a great good badguy film.

Certainly Melville’s films come to mind – in particular “Le Cercle Rouge”. There’s also a whole whack of yakuza films from the 60s and 70s that make you root for certain members of the families. “Le Trou” also jumps out as a film where you very much want to see all the convicts escape.

And I disagree most vehemently with @Tom S about “Ocean’s Twelve” – it’s not really a heist film, so it shouldn’t be held up to those standards. It’s a gloriously fun and beautiful “art” film. I also understand that I’m in the minority with that particular opinion…B-)

The reaction to OCEAN’S TWELVE was so negative (can’t remember how it did financially, though it must have been enough to allow a THIRTEEN) that the working title for THIRTEEN was OCEAN’S THE ONE WE SHOULD HAVE MADE INSTEAD OF THAT LAST ONE.

Both versions of THE LADYKILLERS are great examples of this post-in the first one you find yourself rooting for the crooks against the sweet little old lady mostly because they look like regular schlubs (except for Herbert Lom) who just need a break and that they work so hard and have so many near-misses in getting the money to the house you really want them to make it, but you really don’t want them to hurt the lady-just get away. The remake has more colorful characters, but this time the little old lady is not so sweet, so you really find yourself wanting the robbers to bump her off (especially when you hear at the end how she wants the money to go to Bob Jones University-ugh!). In the original the underlying concept was that it was all a dream in the old lady’s mind, but the remake does not have that as an out, so while she might not be very nice, the possibility of her really being killed is out there, and it takes a lot of the joy out of it.

The remake of THE ITALIAN JOB is more straightforward than the original, so the ending is satisfying in a different way, and while the original is a literal cliffhanger, because of it being Michael Caine, you know he will work things out somehow.

I never saw Ocean’s Twelve so I couldn’t say one way or another but I did see the first one and really liked it. Now, had they been caught, that really would have pissed me off.

Tom’s right about the way the “getting caught” endings feel – like holdovers from the production code era.

Now, with Topkapi, for those who’ve seen it, I was kind of expecting that when the daggers – the real one and the fake one – get jostled, that they would discover later that they had gone to all that trouble just to pick up the real one and put it right back, unknowingly. Then, it would end with someone saying something along the lines of, “Let’s try this one more time.” The going to prison part felt like they had to, in order to fit some cinematic morals clause.

Vanwall – I never saw The Jokers but I’ll check it out now.

Still haven’t seen The Italian Job remake because, you know, it’s not the original.

I’m going to say first of all I love “Tokapi”, I have watched it several times on TCM. Thank you for putting on from time to time. It is hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys in certain films. However, I never could really believe that Gary Cooper or Jimmy Stewart had “shady” pasts in the films:”The Westerner”,”Man of the West”;”Winchester’73″,”Bend of the River”,”After the Thin Man”(he is the bad guy at the very end),”Rose Marie”(I remember he wasn’t very nice in this film either),”Of Human Hearts”(he was just a brat, not wicked). When it came to John Wayne or Henry Fonda, they were more belivable as having a temper and a “dark” side.Examples:”The Searchers”,”Hondo”(I hate the butchering of American Indians),”Red River”(1948),”Stagecoach”,”Fort Apache”(Henry Fonda as a Gen. George A. Custer type), “Firecreek”,”Warlock”,”Tin Star”,”My Name is Nobody”,and of course,”Once Upon a Time in the West”. As Peter Fonda says:”That performance flipped everyone out, including Dad.” Maybe, we really never know whether others are truly good or bad and that both frightens us and intrigues us. Any thought on this?

“Every movie fan probably knows the story of Cary Grant in Suspicion.”What possibly not many people know is that Hitchcock himself wrote a script with as key element the fact that the suspicions are all a figment of the wife’s wild imagination.
This was months before either Grant or Fontaine were cast for the movie. Only after the unconvincing ending of the movie was mocked by many people Hitchcock cooked up the story that the studio forced him to create a happy ending.

“Sure, Michael Corleone and Henry both go unpunished, so to speak, but no one is rooting for them (at least, I hope no one is rooting for them!).”
I’m afraid a lot of people are….certainly in horror movies the killer is usually the one cheered on by the fans; their victims are usually regarded as dispensable. Not a sentiment i myself applaud but others have no qualms whatsoever.

When I wrote a heist movie, I ripped off the ending of Treasure of the Sierra Madre, although I can’t offhand think of another that used it. At the time, I think it seemed like I was working inside a theme.

(Perhaps I shouldn’t spoil it, as a heist is one of the few genres I toyed with many years ago that I’d still be interested in going back to.)

All of this puts me in mind of True Romance. The ending to the original screenplay had more traditional ending, he dies, she goes off sadder but wiser. The ending filmed has them go off to live happily ever after. At the time, I recall the word from the “hardcore” audience was that ending was “darker”, although I thought it was actually very traditional Hollywood with the Hayes Code era “paying for their crimes” and having them get away was actually more interesting, to me, at least.

Of course, one of the disadvantages of our modern age is that I’ve now heard Tony Scott’s take and he meant nothing particularly transgressive, he merely wanted them to get away with it, as you’re suggesting with the other movie criminals.

Emgee, it’s true, especially in slasher flicks that fans root for the killer. Rooting for Freddie or Jason or Chuckie feels safer, I guess, because they’re so cartoonish (though, like you, I don’t share the sentiment). But to actually root for a Henry to succeed? That’s a screwed up fan, let me tell you.

Also, the Wikipedia piece on Suspicion has all the versions of the story, including where it was Hitch’s idea. I can see Hitch being excited about doing a drama like that, playing with the paranoia, but if that’s true then I just wished he’d defended his idea instead of blaming it on someone else.

Neil, that wouldn’t be Lakeside, would it? One of these days, I want you to finish it so I can watch it! Every now and then, I remember reading about it at Bleeding Tree and wonder, “Will I ever get to see that?”

Greg, I’m in the group that hated OCEAN’S TWELVE. The script seemed to have been concocted in a coke-filled weekend. Catherine Zeta-Jones goes to great pains to build her character, which makes her look silly because everyone who was in the original understands that it’s about just showing up for a big paycheck. It’s not one of the three million films you need to see before you die.

TOPKAPI is a lot of fun, and the ending did surprise me.

Viva THE LAVENDER HILL MOB!!! They all deserve a raise and a BONUS! Compared to the Wall Street Criminals these days, they are upstanding citizens.

By the way, Jeff – I’ve never seen The Ladykillers remake and never wanted to but your description of it kind of makes me want to now. I never knew the old lady in the remake wasn’t a sweet old thing.

TOPKAPI is a lot of fun, and the ending did surprise me.

I also like the kitschy touch of showing all of them walking in the snow towards the Kremlin, waving to the camera with the credits reading, “Here they go, again!”

Wish they’d made a sequel. Yes, I’d actually like to see these characters again, even if the sequel was crappy.

Well said, Wilbur, well said. The Lavender Hill Mob is one of the greats.

Neil, that wouldn’t be Lakeside, would it?

Nope. This one was lost at the script phase. Was the computer stolen or crash or… I dunno. I regretted its loss for some time, but can’t imagine even wanting to read it now.

One of these days, I want you to finish it so I can watch it! Every now and then, I remember reading about it at Bleeding Tree and wonder, “Will I ever get to see that?”

I hope so.

I really am a rational skeptic and whatnot, but I really have built up a kind of superstitious fear of its power to ruin my life.

The sad part is, it mostly just needs to edited.

I’d include the seminal caper film, “The Asphalt Jungle”, as a bad guys are the good guys, but only Doc, Dix, Louie, Doll and Gus really. The rest are the real bad guys.

Sterling Hayden played a lot of likable guys who were theoretically bad- I even warmed to his racist, crooked cop in The Godfather. If you watch the interview with him, later in his life, that’s included on Criterion’s release of The Killing, he’s intensely likable in person, too.

It’s funny, I think the only role that comes to mind where I didn’t find him terribly likable was in Johnny Guitar, where he was supposed to be a good guy.

I love Hayden in The Long Goodbye, too but, having seen it three or so times, still couldn’t tell you if he’s a good guy or a bad guy in it.

“Hey, Marlboro Man!”

Neil, I would never force another man to abandon superstitious fears for me. You should put the thriller/heist/caper script back together, though. Eventually you’ll be dead and when that happens, you’re dead forever. That’s what I tell myself these days to keep some, any kind of inspiration in me fueled. Yep, I use death as a motivational tool.

Haha, I think Hayden must be a good guy in The Long Goodbye, as he is a poor fit for its vision of LA and something of a failure- by definition, he must be doing something right.

One problem with the bad guys winning is that you then get the montage of them spending the loot – one guy driving an expensive car, one in an easy chair in a mansion, another in a fancy suit with a babe on each arm, etc. This is how the Italian Job remake ended, I think.

If you were rooting for the bad guys before, now you’ll hate them.

Eventually you’ll be dead and when that happens, you’re dead forever. That’s what I tell myself these days to keep some, any kind of inspiration in me fueled. Yep, I use death as a motivational tool.

I’ve recently taken to the same motivational tool, don’t worry. Age and fatherhood have put that well into perspective for me. I have irons in the fire.

My plan at this point is to go back to “Lakeside” once those have gotten somewhere and I’m back to having a base of operation or network of people I’m working with. And hopefully under better circumstances, in every way, then I was when “Lakeside” was in progress so it won’t collapse on me (or I won’t collapse on it, I’m not sure which was more accurate).

Tom, he’s my favorite character in The Long Goodbye and I wish he didn’t have to die so soon into his appearance. But, yeah, you’re probably right – he doesn’t fit in with any of the phoniness, so he must be good!

Neil, hitting middle-age a few years ago (cough, cough, ahem) and finally getting a real sense of mortality has been as eye-opening to me as it clearly is to so many others. For one thing, I finally understood what “Life Begins at 40″ meant. You finally accept that time is running out and goddammit, you better do something and soon. Glad to hear you’ve got some plans to do the things you love. That and your personal relationships are the only things, in the end, that will bring you true happiness.

I love everything in The Long Goodbye. It makes me infinitely happy, and seems to only get better every time I watch it. Hayden is a huge part of that. It’s just a beautiful, crazy, honest and moving performance.

Here’s another voice agreeing with Topkapi. It was a fun film to watch and Ustinov was so great as the bumbling ex-pat Brit, selling trash to tourists. I think the whole cast was excellent in it, loved the technicolor, and wasn’t The female lead Jules Dassin’s wife? Also agreeing about Lavender Hill Mob that yes, I was rooting for Guiness and Holloway’s characters to succeed. Going back to Jim’s first comment, evil has always existed on this planet, there is nothing new under the sun as to the cruelties we humans inflict on one another, but it does seem that Hollywood began to glorify the cruelties more and more circa the late 60′s early 70′s. I’m not a prude, but one of the appeals of the old movies is that what is depicted doesn’t glorify the cruelties ad nauseum like the modern movies do now. Some aspects of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN were well acted and moving, but the violence depicted and the f bombs I didn’t appreciate. I prefer BATTLEGROUND as an equally well acted and moving WWII movie without the gore and f bombs.

Man oh man do I ever love Topkapi! It’s such a great looking movie. I must confess that I was half hoping your entire post would be about the film and full of fabulous screen grabs that I could swipe. No such luck but I enjoyed reading anyway. Totally agree with you, Greg. Many of my favorite good guys are bad guys in the movies.

@Jenni

I think there’s an argument to be made (in that I’m currently making it) that depicting something like WWII without horrific, visceral violence and nastiness is white washing what really happened.

People have a tendency to think, if only subconsciously, that the way things are depicted in fiction are what they’re really like, so that clean, bloodless wars make people think that perhaps wars aren’t really so bad- and I would infinitely rather have my face rubbed in the brutality of conflict than watch jingoistic claptrap that depicts war as exciting, character building, or glorious.

Neil,
“Yojimbo meets Zatoichi” (1970) also used the “Treasure of the Sierra Madre” ending.
I watched “Topkapi” at the old Fine Arts theater in Dallas, the only venue for “foreign films” in the Dallas area in those days. Long gone, alas. Ustinov’s performance still sticks in my mind after all these years.

Kimberly and Jenni – I didn’t remember much about Topkapi but both my mom and my wife’s dad were big fans of it so we decided to watch it again and, of course, loved it. Since then, we’ve watched countless scenes over again (it’s on Netflix Instant) just to bask in it some more. I love the locations! I mean, just looking at this movie, especially once the depths of winter arrive, will make me feel good.

Tom and Jenni – I’m more with Tom here. I don’t really like Saving Private Ryan but because of what I feel is a poor, jumbled screenplay and a lot of scenes that made my skin crawl in their awful sentimentality but not because of language or violence. That seemed quite fitting given the subject of the film. I mean, “fubar” and “snafu” both were used by soldiers in WWII and the “f” in both isn’t for “fudge.”

My uncle died in Iwo Jima and I think a modern day fiction film or documentary about WWII is probably more respectful to his sacrifice than the propaganda films of the forties and fifties (though some were very good, mind you). Battleground is an exception, one of the great ones and I’m glad you brought that up as an example. It certainly does a quite effective and respectful job without being jingoistic or sappy.

Ustinov’s performance still sticks in my mind after all these years.

He is so damn good. I keep re-watching his scenes on Netflix. Great actor, great performance.

In terms of WWII docs- the ones John Ford shot, the Battle of Midway in particular, have such astonishing footage (literally captured during the height of the battle) and such a sense of immediacy and craft that they get around some of the propaganda restrictions of being shot during wartime. If you can track it down, it’s an amazing document.

I’ve heard that but not yet seen it. Just checked and it’s on DVD available through Netflix. Just put it in my queue. Also, on Instant, is a doc about all of the war footage Ford shot, Midway included. I’ll give that a look this weekend. Thanks for the heads up.

On an (even more) tangential note, Humphrey Jennings’ Listen to Britain (which you can watch on Criterion’s Canterbury Tale disc, among other places) is really charming wartime propaganda- like A Canterbury Tale itself, it includes the war (in showing soldiers and how they spend their time) but works as propaganda by showing the viewer a portrait of Britain itself, its people and customs, and all sorts of charming, impressionistic glimpses of the day to day life that the Nazis are threatening. It’s the kind of propaganda it’s difficult to find anything but lovely.

I love the original Ocean’s 11. Of course you’re going to root for Frank, Dean, Sammy (not so much the brother-in-Lawford) and the rest of the guys. You’re happy they get away with it, but that ending is a hilarious gut punch.

I think that not showing viscera in war films is fine. I also think that showing viscera in war films is fine. I think it depends on how they are used by the director and how it relates to the story being told. I also have no problem with war propaganda films from the forties and fifties. I don’t find them necessarily jingoistic. I’ve never seen a war movie that glorified war. I have seen war movies where the cause being fought for might have been glorified and I see nothing wrong with that. I have never seen a war movie that portrayed war as a good thing.

Really? I mean, of course most movies are going to be conscientious enough outrightly to say Woo, war is awesome! outside of maybe Red Dawn, but there are any number of movies that glorify war in the sense that they make war look like a place where one can earn honor and glory, like something that can make you into a man, all those kinds of things. I mean, compare Path of Glory to the Green Berets- one of them has a very different idea of what war is like than the other.

One CAN earn honor on a battlefield. When a man fights for a cause, putting his life on the line to protect others, is that not honorable? And so many soldiers go into battle as boys, so war can also help make them men. Soldiers learn duty and responsibility, in extreme cases, but they are forced to do so earlier in life than a lot of other men their age.

Glory is what the non-combatants, the non-military folk like me project upon them. It’s not a glorification of war, but instead a glorification of strength, bravery, survival and defense of ideals carried forth. Men who lay down their lives in defense of this nation of worthy of great respect and if it comes across as us glorifying them, then so be it. We cannot relate to what they have done.

Honestly, I think there’s a fundamental difference in philosophy between us here, but at the very least I think war can destroy men’s (and women’s) personalities and moral codes as easily as it can teach them anything worth knowing. Particularly in a war as cruel and meaningless as WW1, or Vietnam. And I have a real problem with a society that teaches one that one achieves adulthood through acts of violence.

Well, you and I already knew that we had fundamental differences in philosophy. War is awful and does not affect each individual involved in the same way. I think those points we can agree on.