TG, Middle Guy and I went and saw Sin City last night, and loved it. When the film was over and credits had rolled, Middle Guy turned to TG and me and said “Let’s stay and see it again” and we almost did.
Josh Chafetz, over at Oxblog, was appalled by Sin City.
SIN CITY IS A MASTERFUL FILM. It’s visually stunning, conceptually interesting, and well acted. It’s also almost totally unwatchable. The violence is so extreme and so constant as to make the movie an almost entirely unpleasant experience.
I think what bothered me most was that some people leaving the theater clearly did enjoy the movie. I worry about the state of their souls as individuals, and about the state of a society that produces people so inured to violence and gore.
and he explains in his next post on the film that the violence was, worse, “purposeless.”
MATT SINGER AND MATT YGLESIAS both seem to think there’s something ironic about someone who supported military action in Iraq decrying the violence in Sin City. That strikes me as too cute by well more than half. We all accept violence for certain purposes — criminal punishment is violence directed by the state against an individual, but we pretty much all think that imprisonment of, say, armed robbers is okay. My support for the Iraq war was always premised on the idea that it would do more good than harm — that it would prevent more violence than it would perpetrate. That was an empirical judgement — a judgement that Singer and Yglesias may think was incorrect, but that was the judgement nonetheless.
Sin City depicts violence for its own sake. There’s no purpose behind the violence — it is simply presented as entertaining in and of itself. That is what I object to. I wouldn’t object to violence in a movie that got at some deeper message through the depictions of violence. That would be violence in the service of a purpose. But the idea that depictions of violence, without more, constitutes entertainment … well, yes, I find that deeply disturbing, just as I would find it deeply disturbing that someone supported the Iraq war because he liked seeing destruction on the evening news.
Here he’s just flatly wrong about the film (although right about the political point).
Part of the attraction of the film – and of noir in general – is the tight moral code that the stories extol.
Every noir hero – and noir stories typically involve either a heroic struggle or a didactic decline – is built as a hero on a moral decision taken at some risk. The stories with heroes involve a deeply flawed hero – a superficially bad man – who at some risk, stands up against his own interest against a powerful and deeply bad force.
The three stories in Sin City each involve exactly such a hero, who should – as Harrigan is told – simply go home to his wife, but who can’t and instead tries to protect someone against a powerful and evil force.
Without that framework, we’re left watching “Natural Born Killers,” and the difference between that movie and this one is instructive to consider – and an explanation of why Sin City works and NBK failed.
It’s not a movie for the squeamish, but it is a movie with a moral center. It’s more Hamlet than The Duchess of Malfi.
“Sin City depicts violence for its own sake. There’s no purpose behind the violence — it is simply presented as entertaining in and of itself. ”
Like boxing? Or Kung Fu movies? Man I hate it when taste gets mixed up with morals, which is basically all the time.
I think Manohla Dargis’ complaint in a review of another film is relevant here:
I think “a modern plague that threatens to bury us in shiny, meaningless movies” says it all.
As a kid that happened to pick up a new issue of Daredevil for the first time a few months after Miller took over story/pics- this all seems long past due…
Bring on the Dark Knight.
“shiny, meaningless movies” does say it all, but it tells me you haven’t read Miller’s work. He’s not a fan of shiny, meaningless things either.
Art and literature are sometimes extremely dark and painful. Sometimes it’s crap and sometimes it isn’t. Not for me to decide.
Frank Miller pushed the boundries of both story telling and artwork to new places. He created things.
It’s late, time to read a couple pages of Miller’s “Ronin” and call it a night.
I saw _Sin City_ on Friday, and while I was impressed with the visuals, wasn’t impressed as a whole with the movie. I found many of the actors/actresses’ performances for be laughable. I was chuckling to myself throughout Mickey Rourke’s vignette and have come to conclusion that Michael Clark Duncan might have ruined his career. The voiceovers throughout the film ( “I removed his weapon; I removed his other weapon.” ) were probably move effective within the novels than on the big screen. There this tactic was cheesey and outlandish.
There was a moral code implicit within this modern day noir, but it wasn’t recognizable if compared to society’s standards. If the National Enquierer publishes photos of Puff Daddy dragging Sug Knight out of the side while searching for Biggie’s killer, I’ll reconsider. Because the moral code was divorced from reality, for its target audience (white males in the 16 to 25 year old range), I just don’t see it having any real effect on our actions or our thoughts. While you may argue borderline cases, there were plenty of other sources to push the demented over the edge. For the literary, Achilles kills more men with less reason than Bruce Willis ever did as Hartigan. The cinema buff might remember Philip Marlowe in _The Big Sleep_ shooting an unarmed man out the door in the full knowledge that the men outside of the door would be gunning for him. HBO had both _The Sopranos_ and _Oz_, both of which are critically aclaimed and rightfully so.
_Sin City_’s sin is that it stripped the dead husk of Hollywood morality off leaving us with just the violence. While _Sin City_ was number one this weekend, I don’t think that audiences will be strong enough to keep it up there. Pure brutality of man against man isn’t very appealing.
Mark Buehner: “I hate it when taste gets mixed up with morals …”
In school they warned me not to get taste mixed up with critical value. They never said anything about getting it mixed up with morals.
Agreed. The violence moreover, was cartoonish anyway, which makes it perfectly comfortable to stomach.
I am curious about the age of the little one. Mine are 11 and 14. The former immediately complained it was in black and white. The effect did grow on him. The latter I do not have a clear read on because the nudity was contrasted to starkly intially(Goldie and Carla(the actress’ name) and then disappeared into male fantasy(Jessica Alba in chaps and a rope). “Sam you do know how to whistle don’t you. You just out your lips together and blow”, worked better for him.
The subject matter that caught me unawares was the pedophila. That I thought was too much and the punishment did not match the punishment found in a prison for that crime.
Loved Sin City, never expected it to be non-fiction.