The Fallen Knight

In a dry patch of earth... the only dry earth in this field of rain, blood and urine soaked mud and misery, lies a gentleman. As the sky breaks into the fading light of dusk, the softly dying light shines against his plate. What plate that hasn't been soiled in the sopping foulness of battle. He is still, as they all are at that stage. His hammered metal shell does not move, neither does the the dark, bloody cloth of his padded garments beneath. He is still, so completely still that he is most certainly dead. His cratered helm and the cracked skull beneath are most certainly what fell him.

Death, or at least life in its very final stages, is a strange thing. He lays there, as they all lay there, on that fouled ground totally still. Still as stones in night's blackness. He makes no sound. His chest does not expand with breath. His mouth, choked with the blood that leaks from the orifices of his inner head does not tremble or close. It just hangs open in a sad, soundless cry. And yet, as you pass him slowly and even admire his armor, you notice that his eyes - shrouded in the shadow of his visor and the blackish brown of dried blood - watch you. They lock with yours as you move slowly above him.

You cannot see the color of those eyes, nor make their shape. But you can see the fading light in them... the fading flame of his life in them. He was young, and strong, and intense. His now still legs were strong and quick, and his shoulders hardy enough to control his war horse. He was not a wealthy man, nor a poor one. He is the son of a landed family. His fate, and his fortunes, and his understanding of himself was tied to the land. The rolling piedmont and forests of the pastoral north country. He was probably married, to a right fair lady of a quiet temper and a Christian heart. He loved, as even a pauper or prince would. You can see it in his face. His heart was not an evil one, and for as much blood as he could shed, he would not have otherwise. If he could have had if any other way, his life would have carried on. The quite life of a shire Knight; tending the estate, hunting boar and buck, siring as many children as his goodly wife could bare, filling his belly with wine, receiving communion, growing old with the seasons.

But here is where his song will end. He lies broken beneath his plate, unable to speak, or to pray. His hand is locked around his sword, though the stench of excrement is sure sign that he has no feeling his body. A grim and saddened priest performs one final blessing on him. He is sure to die, if not now then later, probably at the hands of a merciful archer who will put him out... and then take what he carry. He may last the night in his silence. Waiting to finally fade away. To be taken by the divinity and finality of God's plan.

As you move away, you wonder who he was, and what his life had truly been. To whom his heart had truly belonged. You wonder when he will finally pass into death. You swallow the bitter tragedy of knowing that his time had not ended by God's plan... it had ended by misfortune. The misfortune of his time, of his birth and of his station.

...You feel his eyes turn from you to gaze into heaven and ponder the same things.

Making Lists: Disappointing Movies with So Much Potential

Some films, like "Mean Streets" or "Dawn of the Dead" or "Chimes at Midnight" have that special alchemical mix that leaves little to be desired. They live up to their hype. They meet all your hopes for them. At least, that's the case for moi. There are some films, however, that simply don't deliver of their promises and one is left with the feeling of really wanting to love them, but simply cannot do so honestly.

I have carefully and painstakingly compiled a list of such films. And because I am NOT a chooch who makes claims that he can't back-up, I will also explain my reasons for why they disappoint.

1.) The Keep (1983)

If there was one filmmaker who defined the 1980's, it was Michael Mann. "Thief" (1981), "Manhunter" (1986), "Miami Vice" (1984-1990) and "Crime Story" (1986-1988) painted a neon and black, pulp underworld of lurid affairs, blood money and obsession driven to electronic toccatas and vivid images.

His second feature film, "The Keep" takes that world and drops it onto World War II. The film centers around a German regiment discovering a great evil in a Romanian castle. An SS Officer (played by Gabriel Byrne) denies it. A persecuted scholar (played by Ian McKellan) seeks to harness it. And a stranger (played by Scott Glenn) seeks to destroy it.

The film looks very good. The visuals are pure Michael Mann, and the ambient soundtrack by Tangerine Dream puts us into the surreal and dark mood of the picture. The sets are surreal and immense, going beyond the realm of any WWII genre film and into the realm of fantasy. Mann's film is a world of parallel angles, grim colors and ethical inversion. The film often feels almost like a journey into the mind of a Nazi. Often it seems like a film that you must feel more than watch to understand. You crawl into it and get lost in its depths.

There are, however, glaring and profound faults with the film. Originally, the film was roughly three-hours-long, the most widely seen version of the film, the video version, was ninety minutes. There are no DVD versions of the film that I know of, and Mann has long since disowned "The Keep". You can omit it from your resume, but IMDb is an all seeing eye. The version I saw, on Netflix, was the shorter version. The plot and the film's theme are nearly impossible to understand as almost all of the exposition beyond whispered conversation between characters is lost to video editing. One gets the feeling that Mann had intended for "The Keep" to explore deeper, more profound themes about power, ideology and faith, but the extensive editing has left us with a run-of-the-mill horror/war/action film. The film's cast, despite being consummate actors, give hammy performances more at home in a Roger Corman film, rather than an A-List film by an A-List director.

Despite what I enjoyed about the film, I was left with the conclusion that "The Keep" was ultimately style with no substance. A strange and unbalanced mix of "Force 10 from Navarone", "Dracula", "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "The Wall".

2.) The Good Son (1993)

20th Century Fox loves a box office film. The two big films of the time were "Home Alone" and "The Silence of the Lambs". Their idea: let's combine the two. The end result is 1993's "The Good Son".

11-year-old, Mark Evans (played by future hobbit, Elijah Wood) has lost his mother to cancer. When his father must go away on a business trip, Mark is left with his Uncle and Aunt in a picturesque Maine town. At first, Mark enjoys his temporary home and the company of his cousin, Henry (played by then box office draw, Macaulay Culkin). Soon, however, Mark discovers that his cousin has a VERY dark side.

"The Good Son" is not a bad movie. Not by any means. It is a very watchable movie, at least in my opinion. The film was well shot and well edited, not breaking any new round, but certainly a clean audio and visual experience. Elijah Wood's performance as a boy haunted by his experiences was very good (especially for a kid) and Macaulay Culkin's performance as the psychopathic cousin was sufficiently dark. The film really worked well in its depiction of childhood... or, at least childhood before the internet. The kids are not lily white little scamps that break a window by accident and then feel bad about it. No, they break windows because it's fun and kids like to have fun and get into trouble. Why, because kids don't understand the consequences. They are, after-all, children. And "The Good Son" depicts that convincingly. There is a light side and a dark side to childhood.

Initially, "The Good Son" had a deeper and more complex script (according the IMDb). And there are definitely signs of that throughout the film. It starts to explore concepts of loss, grief, parent-child relationships, and the nature of evil only to leave them too quickly and dive back into suspense. The end result is a superficial exploration full of exposition and very well crafted writing that seems incomplete. One reason for this may have been Macaulay Culkin's domineering father whose political power in Hollywood (thanks in no small part to his son), meant that he was often able to dictate the direction of projects starring his son. If a writer or director resisted or protested (as was the case of this picture) they would be replaced. The end result, a very non-mainstream concept trying to be mainstream.

"The Good Son" was a film that, at least to me, had a lot going for it. Yes, the concept of a child psychopath is hard territory to explore, but it could have been worth it. This picture seemed to have more things to say and more depths to explore. Unfortunately, what we're left with is mainstream fare. A potentially important movie, hobbled by a studio into an unimportant one.

3.) The Departed (2006)

If you've read my post about "Mean Streets" (if you haven't, you should), you'll know that I am a fan of Martin Scorsese's work, particularly from the earlier leg of his career. But I am no fanboy. As much as I loved "Mean Streets", "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore", "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "Casino", I am seasoned enough to know when a master just isn't delivering. As such is the case with "The Departed".

"The Departed" is a remake of a Hong Kong film about two cops; one, a good-guy undercover as a bad guy, and the other, a bad guy undercover as a good guy. In the case of this film, it is Leonardo DiCaprio as Billy Costigan (Good Guy), and Matt Damon as Collin Sullivan (Bad Guy), entangled in the web of Boston crime boss, Frank Costello (played by Jack Nicholson). Also rounding-out the all star cast is Mark Wahlberg, Alec Baldwin and Vera Farmiga.

I preface with this (probably going to be unpopular) critique by conceding that "The Departed", like ALL Scorsese films, no matter how poorly realized, is a well made film. It is energetic, it is visceral, it is funny, it is dark and it is extremely watchable, again and again. Scorsese and his team are such storytellers and such craftsmen, that even their mediocre work outshines that of most others.

The explicit themes of the film explore deceit, crime, and loyalty. Some implicit themes explore the father-and-son relationship, absence of belief, and the idea of getting in so deep, that you become the thing you are sworn to defeat. In short, typical undercover cop fare,( e.g. "Donnie Brasco", "Rush", "Prince of the City"). Now, there's nothing wrong with typical cop fare. I enjoy typical cop fare... when it's done right. But this movie should have been more than that. Watching this movie, I feel as if Scorsese sacrificed substance for speed and exploration for energy. And though it was not a bad movie, I feel as though it took cheap and easy routes towards it final point. It took what should have been a world of grey, and turned-up the contrast to black-and-white. The good guys are definitely good, and the bad guys are definitely bad. It ultimately reduces down to an opera of rock music, blood lust and dichotomy (this is/that isn't).

The film is based, very heavily on the true case of "Whitey" Bulger. A Boston area crime boss who was able to infiltrate the FBI, acting as a mole while simultaneously gaining a blood-soaked grip of the area's underworld. I honestly feel as if this is the film Scorsese SHOULD have made. The story he should have told, with all of its complexities and murky depths. The story of an FBI agent who is corrupted, the man who corrupted him, and the agents who brought them both down.

For all of its good, bad, and ugly, "The Departed" (a film that won Scorsese an award), ultimately boils down to a perverted version of "Infernal Affairs" with a Southie accent.