I read under the quote section of Michael Mann's profile here at imdb that he considers "Thief" to be a left-existential
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Thief
Crockett16 — 10 years ago(February 12, 2016 09:11 AM)
I read under the quote section of Michael Mann's profile here at imdb that he considers "Thief" to be a left-existentialist critique of corporate capitalism. When I read this, I suddenly felt more appreciation for this film because there was an actual underlying message in it instead of it just being a story. I've read about themes in Michael Mann's other films like "Heat" and "Miami Vice". Someone wrote about how the main characters in "Heat" are slaves to the confines of the work-a-day which doesn't allow them to form personal relationships with their loved ones. A french film critic interpreted "Miami Vice" as criticism of contemporary capitalism for various reasons. Has anyone else read anything about underlying themes in other Mann films? BTW, for anyone who thinks Mann's films are style over substance, think again.
-
meguroutsubo — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 11:01 PM)
I remember
Miami Vice
and it made drug running and the excesses of the 80s look awfully good everyone drove around in a Lambo and chased each other in cigarette boats.
Francois Truffaut said something like,
film tends to glamorize what it shows, to make it larger than life.
He said such glamorization is what made it hard to make a really anti-war film because the nature of film made the violence exciting. When Mann filmed all those scenes in rich and fancy houses, he may have been trying to critique yuppie ethics, but all we could do was gawk at the lifestyle. -
filmklassik — 9 years ago(October 23, 2016 09:20 PM)
What critics of MIAMI VICE may be overlooking is the fact that audiences have always been drawn to stories about rich and powerful people living in lush and luxurious surroundings. And a lot of that springs from wish fulfillment.
Was Shakespeare writing about ordinary Elizabethans with everyday problems? Nope. He was writing about kings and queens, princes and generals, and the things
they
were going through.
Class-warfare and the "hang the rich" mentality was even stronger in the Great Depression than it is today (if you can believe it) yet movie audiences flocked in droves to watch Fred and Ginger dancing to Gershwin and Porter in extravagant Art Deco ballrooms and lavish hotel suites.
In the early 1990s, Aaron Spelling decided to make a TV show about American teenagers. He could've set his show in any town or city in the country, but which one did he choose? That's right, BEVERLY HILLS 90210. That's not a coincidence.
So whether it's DALLAS in the 70s or DYNASTY or MIAMI VICE in the 80s or the high-end, hip hop world of EMPIRE today (which has been described as a "Black Dallas"), it simply doesn't matter: In every decade of every era, audiences have yearned for stories about the rich and powerful.
No exceptions. -
meguroutsubo — 9 years ago(October 24, 2016 08:36 PM)
Was Shakespeare writing about ordinary Elizabethans with everyday problems? Nope. He was writing about kings and queens, princes and generals, and the things they were going through.
I've read that's not only because the proles wanted to see the rich and noble in turmoil, but Shakespeare's theater was apparently kept afloat by donations from the rich and noble; so he depicted them as gifted solvers of humanity's problems, or as noble sufferers of a cruel fate in order to make them feel important.
In every decade of every era, audiences have yearned for stories about the rich and powerful.
This was not always the case in the late 60s/early 70s; people could make movies like "Minnie and Moskowitz" that were more about ordinary people. Audiences wanted a break from the "Pillow Talk" formula flicks of the 50s that the studios relied on.
As for Aaron Spelling.
I don't know whether he was pandering to the audience's lust for glamour, or whether he was just plain lazy and didn't want to leave Orange County and risk seeing the "flyover states" between L.A. and NYC. So he made
yet another goddamn show
set in California. -
filmklassik — 9 years ago(October 25, 2016 11:41 PM)
This was not always the case in the late 60s/early 70s; people could make movies like "Minnie and Moskowitz" that were more about ordinary people. Audiences wanted a break from the "Pillow Talk" formula flicks of the 50s that the studios relied on.
And there were plenty of "kitchen-sink" dramas and comedies in the 1950s too movies and shows that showed and celebrated ordinary people (MARTY, THE HONEYMOONERS, etc)
Along
with the ones that were aspirational in nature.
Just like there were plenty of aspirational movies and shows in the late 60s and early 70s that played alongside EASY RIDER and ALL IN THE FAMILY.
As for Aaron Spelling. I don't know whether he was pandering to the audience's lust for glamour, or whether he was just plain lazy and didn't want to leave Orange County and risk seeing the "flyover states" between L.A. and NYC. So he made yet another goddamn show set in California.
Spelling's motives may never be known, although I suspect he knew audiences wanted to watch a prime time soap opera featuring rich gorgeous people. I doubt personal geography played much of a role in his decision. After all, how many of his previous shows had been filmed on location? (Example: Was Dynasty?) I'm guessing they were all shot in or around Burbank, so he could've set his series in Katmandu without having to ever leave home. But he chose Beverly Hills.
But the point I was (perhaps clumsily) trying to make wasn't about Spelling, it was about the
audience
. And the audience lapped that show up like a hot fudge sundae same way they lapped up Dallas, Dynasty, Hart to Hart, Astaire and Rogers, the Bond films, the Thin Man movies, etc. -
Noir-It-All — 9 years ago(November 10, 2016 12:33 PM)
in the late 60s/early 70s
Agreed. Many movie makers and movie goers blamed the old movies showing life to be easy (walk out of an airport, your car would be right there and start right away and married couples having no problems).
Showing the grit and bad times were thought to be honest to the audience.
"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne -
MortSahlFan — 9 years ago(January 27, 2017 02:49 PM)
I think you're wrong. I find the "rich" boring, even when they are being satirized. But just because it's my opinion, or your opinion, doesn't make it general. People didn't have much choice what's fed to them.
There was a great period of movies during FDR - movies with heart, moral movies, talented.
I could easily and more accurately generalize that no matter what, people seem to always love the classics more, not just movies, but music too. Even 15-yr olds love the 60s and 70s, but no new generation ever cares about some 80s band. -
exaybachay84 — 9 years ago(January 15, 2017 08:15 PM)
I read under the quote section of Michael Mann's profile here at imdb that he considers "Thief" to be a left-existentialist critique of corporate capitalism. When I read this, I suddenly felt more appreciation for this film because there was an actual underlying message in it instead of it just being a story. I've read about themes in Michael Mann's other films like "Heat" and "Miami Vice". Someone wrote about how the main characters in "Heat" are slaves to the confines of the work-a-day which doesn't allow them to form personal relationships with their loved ones. A french film critic interpreted "Miami Vice" as criticism of contemporary capitalism for various reasons. Has anyone else read anything about underlying themes in other Mann films? BTW, for anyone who thinks Mann's films are style over substance, think again.
This is great contribution, thanks. I've seen "Heat" countless times and always discovered something that previously went unnoticed. This is new to me and it shines a new light on this fantastic movie, giving it another layer. Michael Mann is the man, his films are style AND substance.
Do you have any tobacco?