Inside man

[Steve Canyon]

Spike Lee doesn't do thrillers.

But he does do urban characters really well. It's not just Denzel Washington either. All of the characters are written really well and fine acting througout. For example, the scene where the criminals call and offer a riddle for the cops to solve and then everyone in the crime truck starts bickering about the answer. If you've ever asked a small group of annoymous New Yorkers for directions, you know this is exactly the kind of thing you get.

There is one really silly plot hole that you either buy into or not. After that bitter pill, the rest of the moive holds together quite nicely.

There is one signature Spike Lee shot to let you know this is a Spike Lee Joint, yo. I enjoyed these things the first time I saw them, but am wondering why Mr Lee would include something so obviously dated when he is apparently trying to move into new territory with a crime thriller. I don't mind distracting shots, but I was intrigued by this in Do the Right Thing and that was, what, more than 10 years ago?

[Gary Whitta]

Spike Lee doesn't do thrillers.

But he does do urban characters really well. It's not just Denzel Washington either. All of the characters are written really well and fine acting througout.
Spike Lee didn't write it, nor does he act in it. So I'd give that credit to Russell Gewirtz, who wrote the characters, and to the actors who played them.

[RedTide]

I thought it worked pretty well as a thriller, the idea of dressing the hostages like the robbers was a nice twist, as was the escaping (even if it was a little far fetched).

Though the characters were definately what held it together, some really great acting.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Yup, I liked it. I mean, Denzel Washington just reprised his role as Denzel Washington, but it was good anyway, the other performances were all solid.

[Steve Canyon]

Spike Lee didn't write it, nor does he act in it. So I'd give that credit to Russell Gewirtz, who wrote the characters, and to the actors who played them.

If it were any other director, I'd say you were right. But Spike Lee? What would you say the director get props for?

[Miramon]

I was expecting the movie to be worse (just saw it), but really it was quite entertaining for an hour, and it was particularly pleasing to see a movie like this with so few stupid special effects, explosions, and idiotic slo-mo or stop-action fight scenes....

The first half of the movie was quite good, when it was unclear what was going on. However, it fell apart (and the acting deteriorated too) when it all became obvious.

While the cops' roles, dialogue and acting were fine in the first half of the movie (hey, check it out, Willem Dafoe not hamming it up!), the mayor, bank-chairman, and fixer roles were all badly written and badly acted throughout, and even the cops seemed to give up on their roles in the latter half of the film, as the suspense evaporated. The denouement was especially painful and clumsy.

I do not admire the plot or any of the twists or gimmicks. All implausible in detail and in overall conception. But the plot is a minor consideration in this movie. Had the acting stayed tight and all the details not been given away too early, and maybe if the entire weak premise been changed, the implausibility of the plot would not have been a big deal.

[extarbags]

Liked this quite a bit. Even Spike Lee didn't manage to ruin it, although it wasn't for lack of trying; every half hour or so the movie takes a break from being a cool thriller to point out just how racist everyone is.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Is Spike Lee really that terrible a director? I confess I haven't seen a film of his in awhile, but he did direct some quality films IMO.

[TheTrunkDr]

Spike Lee just doesn't know when to stop making his stupid point that was made back in Do the Right Thing. Nobody wants to be lectured, and that's exactly what Spike Lee's movie's have turned into. Any and every time he pulls out the race lecture it's obvious and annoying. If he wants to be a political activist then go to Washington, if he wants to be a movie director he needs to learn when to keep the politics out!

[Steve Canyon]

I must have missed the race lecture. What scene did you feel was a lecture on race, TrunkDr

[TheTrunkDr]

Specifically when the beat cop is talking to Washington's character about the time he got shot.

[extarbags]

Is Spike Lee really that terrible a director? I confess I haven't seen a film of his in awhile, but he did direct some quality films IMO.

Yeah, he really is. Look, do you know how hard it is to ruin a movie about a stand-up comedy tour? Pretty hard. Spike Lee managed to find a way. That makes him a worse director than whoever directs those Comedy Central standup specials.

But I'm curious. What movies of his (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000490/) did you think were good, besides this one and maybe Do The Right Thing?

[TheTrunkDr]

How was 25th hour? I never saw it and I didn't know it was a Spike Lee movie.

[Steve Canyon]

Specifically when the beat cop is talking to Washington's character about the time he got shot.

I'd rather be an old racist then a ... ah, I can't remember the entire line.

It didn't seem like a lecture to me. Like the New Yorkers arguing about the riddle, race presenting itself in conversations between racial diverse people seems about right to me for NYC. If you don't see it that much in other movies about NYC, it's probably because the other directors and writers are glossing over depicting an authentic NYC experience.

[Miramon]

It didn't seem like a lecture to me. Yeah, I thought it was unobjectionable, too. I didn't feel like I was being lectured in this movie.

[Tom Chick]

Clockers is awesome, too. That and 25th Hour are his best movies, and I don't think either is too preachy.

Inside Man was a reminder that sometimes established directors need to step down from doing Important Works and just dip their hands into genre. Woody Allen did it last year with Match Point and I'm pleased to see Spike Lee do it with Inside Man. And I think Lee and the actors deserves plenty of credit, because the script for Inside Man sure wasn't anything special.

Oh, and I loved the actor-on-a-dolly shot, which is what I presume Steve Canyon is referring to as the signature Spike Lee moment. I love those kinds of touches when they're not too over the top.

-Tom

[awdougherty]

my only beef with the actor on the dolly shot was that he did it more than once (Plummer seemed to get that treatment at his desk to enhance the Hitchcock vertigo move already taking place). if he had just saved it for washington, I thought it would have been fine, although a touch heavy-handed.

as for his directing, who knows. I feel like the movies of his I've seen don't really come together well, even if I enjoy them, and this time he wasn't helped by the script. but the performances were generally strong, Foster looked really good, not sure how old she is.

Then again, there are a lot of great directors who still have that film school edge, enthusiasm, spark, whatever, but they never quite master the professional polish. I feel like Lee is one of these guys, Scorsese is another.

[Tom Chick]

awdoughterty, I presume you're talking about the shot of Christopher Plummer as Clive Owen explains his backstory to Jodie Foster? He also does it in the opening monologue as Clive Owen is talking to the camera. It's very different from the actor-on-a-dolly trick. It involves dollying the camera forward while zooming the lens out, and it results in a disorienting optical effect.

I think you're right that it's originally associated with Hitchcock. However, I recall it mostly from Jaws, when Brody sees the boy being eaten by the shark.

But Spike Lee's trick, which I seem to recall mostly from a dialogue between two characters in, maybe Jungle Fever?, is to actually put the actor on a moving platform. The result is moving background, but the actor is obviously not walking. Instead, he's effectively gliding along. I don't recall it serving much purpose -- as far as I could tell -- when Spike Lee did it before.

But for Inside Man, he only does it after Denzel Washington sees the hostage being killed. I loved the shot because it showed so much movement around Washington as he's hurtling forward, motionless, his face a sort of shellshocked deadpan. It was a great representation of someone with a single purpose and direction, unmoved by all the commotion on the periphery.

At that moment in the movie, I was pretty sure no one had actually been killed. But because Spike Lee put such a special twist into that shot, I wasn't entirely sure. It was a great use of a bit of trickery for a specific reason.

-Tom

[awdougherty]

Yeah, I know how they do the shot, that's what makes me think it was that shot done with some dolly movement to further accentuate it. Maybe the really did just a dolly and zoom, but it felt exaggerated somehow, so I was thinking they might have added some extra movement on the actor as well.

edit: apologies if that came off confrontationally, sounded a little that way when I read back over it. As for when he clearly did it to Denzel, I thought that moment definitely needed a touch of some sort and that one was just as good as any. But I wasn't sure if that exact touch conveyed what needed to be conveyed. I knew there was enough shock to go around, but I didn't get into the "this actually happened to Denzel before during that hospital thing" feeling that maybe might have fit in there.

[Funkman]

Got a chance to see this on Friday, and I will say that I enjoyed it. For me, it was the pacing of it that I thought was really cool. There were those moments where it slowed down and you sat in with the detectives and swat guys as they hashed out a plan of action. It became almost like a police procedural, and I really dug the way those parts played out.

Plus, the acting was completely solid all around, and as you guys mentioned, that shot with Washington moving towards the bank after the hostage is shot was a really nice touch.

[Rock8man]

One little touch I loved about the movie was that Denzel Washington's character had a little cough going. You never see that in movies.

Excellent movie. It's what Dog Day Afternoon would be like if it had been more entertaining.

[Steve Canyon]

At that moment in the movie, I was pretty sure no one had actually been killed. But because Spike Lee put such a special twist into that shot, I wasn't entirely sure. It was a great use of a bit of trickery for a specific reason.

Although I didn't feel that way about the shot, that's an interesting point I hadn't considered. When I saw it, I just thought: ah, Spike Lee showing us one of his signature shots. Have you seen that sort of thing done in any non-Spike Lee movie? I can't think of any, but I can't figure out the shot you two are talking about from Jaws and I've seen it quite a few times.

[Steve Canyon]

Oh, and I loved the actor-on-a-dolly shot, which is what I presume Steve Canyon is referring to as the signature Spike Lee moment. I love those kinds of touches when they're not too over the top.

Ah, somehow I missed this post earlier.

Yes, that's the one. I see now what you're saying. It wasn't over the top and did have an actual use as you explained in the other message. For some reason it just pulled me out of the picture I guess.

[Tom Chick]

One little touch I loved about the movie was that Denzel Washington's character had a little cough going. You never see that in movies.

In Jennifer Eight, John Malkovich had a cold throughout the movie. Pretty cool touch. But, yeah, normally a cough means the character's going to be dead of consumption or cancer by the end of the next reel!


Have you seen that sort of thing done in any non-Spike Lee movie? I can't think of any, but I can't figure out the shot you two are talking about from Jaws and I've seen it quite a few times.

Again, just to clarify, there are two different things we're talking about. The signature Lee shot is to rig a moving platform with a fixed camera, put the actor on it, and roll it. This creates the sense that the actor is gliding, because his body is obviously not walking.

But the shot from Jaws, which I believe Hitchcock is known for using, is to move the camera towards the actor while simultaneously zooming out the view. This causes the backdrop to balloon outwards and makes the actor look like he's moving, although it's just an optical trick.

It's a famous shot in Jaws.

Brody has found the first victim, but no one is willing to close the beaches because there's no proof it's a shark. So he's personally at the beach to keep an eye on things, even though he hates the water. The scene opens with Alex Kintner asking his mom if he can stay in the water just a little longer. She relents. He goes splashing into the ocean on an inflatable raft.

Then we see Brody watching everything. We see a series of false alarms. A girl screams because her boyfriend is lifting her on his shoulders (This is a split focus image, BTW, where half of the shot is a close-up of the face of the man talking to Brody and the other half is a distant shot of the girl in the water; you can see the blurry dividing line down the middle of the screen). An old man in a swimming cap that looks like a shark's nose. The old man comes over and says something about how Brody hates the water, to which Brody says something like, "That's some bad hat, Harry"*. Brody's wife comes over and starts massaging his shoulders.

Then things start to get a bit ominous. A man kind find his dog, who'd been playing in the water. "Pippin?" he calls. "Pippin?"

Then we cut to shark view. It swims under a bunch of kids' legs and rises up into Alex Kintner on his raft. The shark hits him and there's that horrible shot of those two enormous fins rolling over and then the blood spewing up while the boy is dragged down. Those of us freaked out by Jaws will always rememeber that image.

And the very next shot, as Brody sees it all, is the camera dollying in on him while zooming out. It's the world around a character simultaneously collapsing and expanding. Brody was right: it was a shark, no one will be able to deny it, and a boy is being killed because he didn't make the case strongly enough.

-Tom

* Bad Hat Harry was, IIRC, the name of Bryan Singer's production company when he made The Usual Suspects.

[Bill Dungsroman]

What Chick said.

[JPR]

...move the camera towards the actor while simultaneously zooming out the view...

This trick is used all over the place. Another extremely famous example is toward the end of Goodfellas when they are sitting at the table in the diner talking. For the entire scene, this effect is very slowly happening.

It's also in Evil Dead 2 -- a nice nerd touchstone.

[ambushbug]

That's a rack-focus right?

(Yay Jr. College film classes!)

[Steve Canyon]

I know the part you're talking about Tom, but I must always hide my head or something becasue I just don't recall this shot.

I do understand the difference between the two shots. The one you're describing from Jaws is an unusual effect, but I'm sure I've seen it before. The other shot is signature Spike Lee. I thought I saw it first in Do The Right Thing, but it has been so long, I could be wrong.

[Tom Chick]

That's a rack-focus right?

I have now slammed headfirst into the limits of my knowledge, but that's not going to stop me from saying I don't think rack-focus is the term for the effect we're talking about. Isn't rack-focus just the act of keeping a focal point while the camera moves? And isn't there a dude whose job it is to rack-focus whenever the camera moves? I'm thinking of Kevin Corrigan in Living in Oblivion here.

-Tom

[Tom Chick]

It's the dang internet, I suppose I can just look it up. Hold on...

...aw, man, we suck. Rack-focus (http://homepage.newschool.edu/~schlemoj/film_courses/glossary_of_film_terms/glossary.html#r) is just changing the focus without following any movement.

-Tom

[ynohtna]

I'm pretty sure the actor on moving platform style shot has also been used by Darren Aronofsky in Requiem For A Dream - when Jennifer Connolly exits the apartment of the family friend (?) who she just screwed for cash and vomits in the street.

A similar effect was used in Pi but considering the vastly smaller budget I think he merely placed the SteadiCam around the actor's waist with the camera pointing backwards.

[graller]

25th Hour was an excellent film and well worth seeing.

[extarbags]

I'm pretty sure the actor on moving platform style shot has also been used by Darren Aronofsky in Requiem For A Dream - when Jennifer Connolly exits the apartment of the family friend (?) who she just screwed for cash and vomits in the street.

A similar effect was used in Pi but considering the vastly smaller budget I think he merely placed the SteadiCam around the actor's waist with the camera pointing backwards.

And it's a stupid shot every time. Sorry, but that's exactly the kind of shot that directors throw into movies to show how awesome they are. But people don't slide forward on platforms in real life. They only do that in movies. So when you see that, you either think to yourself, "Christ, I hate that stupid look-ma-I'm-directing bullshit" or "Hey, what a clever shot, it really shows what the character is going through." I'm in the former category, but either way, it takes you out of the film, which is not a good thing.

[Tom Chick]

But people don't slide forward on platforms in real life.

If that's your criteria for not being taken out of a movie, you'd probably better stick with movies that are one long continuous take. :)

I understand what you're saying, but there's room to play with the vocabularly of filmmaking, if you will, without being gratuitous. Spike Lee played it straight enough throughout Inside Man that he'd earned the Denzel-on-a-dolly trick. To me, at least.

As for the strap a steadi-cam to an actor -- which isn't the same as putting an actor on a dolly -- the earliest instance I can think of is either Mean Streets or The Exorcist. I seem to recall DeNiro reeling around drunk in Mean Streets. But the shot from The Exorcist is much more vivid in my memory. Regan has just jumped onto a priest and as he falls over, the camera goes to the floor with him. Pretty freaky, at the time.

-Tom

[Steve Canyon]

I'm pretty sure the actor on moving platform style shot has also been used by Darren Aronofsky in Requiem For A Dream - when Jennifer Connolly exits the apartment of the family friend (?) who she just screwed for cash and vomits in the street.
.

You could be right. The shots I liked in RFD where the pupils dialating, which is basically just a close up, funky sound effects, and time lapse photography. Now that I think of it, these shots usually followed close up shots of the syringe sucking up the drugs and its own funky sound effect. Nice stuff. Beats the cow jumping over the moon shot from Drugstore cowboy.

[extarbags]

If that's your criteria for not being taken out of a movie, you'd probably better stick with movies that are one long continuous take. :)

I understand what you're saying, but there's room to play with the vocabularly of filmmaking, if you will, without being gratuitous. Spike Lee played it straight enough throughout Inside Man that he'd earned the Denzel-on-a-dolly trick. To me, at least.

Well, here's the thing. When I'm watching a movie, I should be completely engaged in it. I should be, as much as possible, living in the world of that movie for two hours, and my thoughts should be monopolized by the events of the film. So when I'm watching The Inside Man, I should be (and was, most of the time) thinking things like "What's the angle here?" and "How are they going to get away with it?" and "Are the cops going to catch him?" When I saw that shot, I thought "I am watching a movie." That kind of shot just screams "movie" to me. And it really did take me out of it.

Now, as far as Lee playing it straight throughout most of it and earning that shot: I only agree insofar as the rest of the movie was good enough to leave me with a positive impression of the film as a whole, in spite of this shot and a couple other things I had problems with. I don't think that that makes the individual shot any better, and I *do* think that the movie would have been better off without it.

[JPR]

In case anybody cares, the camera-mounted-to-the-actor trick is frequently called a "snorry-cam". Here's a quote (http://es.geocities.com/eiga9/articulos/fukasakuandscorsese.html) about its use in Mean Streets:


In Mean Streets it was to used to show Harvey Keitel's drunkenness as he staggers around Tony's Bar) after one of the protagonists, Eddy (Nick Moran), had lost 100,000 pounds on a bad poker hand.

It's used lots of places, too, of course. It's in Lock Stock, Bound, both Aronofsky movies, etc. It is one of my personal favorite flashy camera thingies.

And rack focus is where you are looking at something in extreme close up (somebody setting down a drink, for example), then rack focus to the bad guy coming in the door across the room.

[Bill Dungsroman]

It's in 25th Hour, too. When Anna Paquin is all high and sweaty and delicious and what were we talking about?

[Dave Perkins]

My favorite "actor-with-camera-in-front" shot is of Marlon Wayans running from the limo in Requiem For A Dream.

Tidbit from Inside Man: At the end of the movie, the main character walks into his girlfriend's apartment to find a man snoring on the couch. The man is holding a bottle of a make-believe beverage that Spike Lee invented for his movie Bamboozled.

[Rywill]

I finally saw this yesterday. I thought it was really good for what it was -- most heist movies are just so-so or fall apart at the end, but I thought this one works all the way through. I liked how the script initially sets up Clive Owen as the villainous guy you'll root for, but then by the end the audience goes through the same transition that Washington's character does -- you respect Owen and then you sort of even like him. It probably helps that I'm one of these movie suckers who never figures out the twist (and doesn't even try -- I usually try to just roll along with the movie rather than trying to think 20 minutes ahead). [SPOILERS COMING!] I don't know that someone could really live behind a false wall for a week undetected, but I thought it was close enough to plausible that I really liked it. I thought the whole heist plan was pretty fun and clever. Although all through the movie I kept flashing back to Bill Murray in "Quick Change".

Anyway, I liked the story, the acting was good on all counts (although the two leads were basically playing the same character they always play. Hey, I'm the funny but dedicated hero! Hey, I'm the ice-cold meticulous crook!), I liked the direction a lot, overall thumbs-up from me. Definitely worth seeing.

Tim: what was the glaring plot hole you didn't like?

[Steve Canyon]

Well, maybe it is not that glaring, seeing as no one else has mentioned it. Spoiler to follow:


There is one little piece of paper on the entire planet that proves I am an evil Nazi so of course I preserve it in my safe deposit box until someone smarty pants crook comes along who can steal it.

[Rywill]

Ah. Yeah, fair enough. I took it that he kept it out of a mixture of (a) reminder to himself of his shame and maybe (b) psychological subconscious desire to be caught and (c) secret thrill that he was involved in it. But I can definitely see your point of view.

[Dave Perkins]

Ah. Yeah, fair enough. I took it that he kept it out of a mixture of (a) reminder to himself of his shame and maybe (b) psychological subconscious desire to be caught and (c) secret thrill that he was involved in it. But I can definitely see your point of view.

My friends and I went with (b), thanks to the bad guy's statement that he'd been trying to pay for what he'd done ever since he'd done it.

Of course, to really pay, he should have given all of his ill-gotten wealth to those less fortunate than himself, but he was not QUITE that interested in really paying. This just makes him a multi-dimensional character, both good and bad, and that's good writing.

[Steve Canyon]

This just makes him a multi-dimensional character, both good and bad, and that's good writing.


Mwhohahahahhahahahahahahah!

For this post to be good writing, you have to end it with the Manic Bad Guy Laugh.

[Manta]

So, I just saw this on DVD today, and the plot hole that I don't get is....

SPOILERS

How did the Clive Owens character know that the diamonds/Nazi stuff was there? It seems like the whole heist was structured around that particular safe deposit box, but they never explained why he was taking it, or where he had heard about it from. Did I miss something?

[Rywill]

(Continued spoilers)

You did not. It's never explained how Owen knows about the safety deposit box, how he met and selected his crew, etc. However, there are plausible explanations for that stuff, so I didn't mind it. Investigators sometimes discover someone's secret past ties to the Nazis (e.g., the recent lawsuits versus various companies who dealt with them, or the revelations about the extent of Swiss and French government complicity). The lack of records for the deposit box were noticeable to anyone looking closely at the bank's records (for example, Washington notices it pretty much right away). Either of those things could have started someone on the path to discover Plummer's secret. The director doesn't tell you how it started, which I actually kind of like (although I would have really disliked it if there were no reasonable explanation that I could think of).

[Jojo]

Just to go back to the zoom and dolly thing for a moment, I believe Kubrick invented it or most famously used it in The Shining, where its put to excellent use in the hotel corridor shots IIRC.

I saw Inside Man a couple of days ago and was a bit disappointed. I thought the actor on a dolly shot was really out of place, and agree with Extarbags, it just pulled me out of the movie for a moment. I think I actually exclaimed "what the fuck?" out loud. There was some good acting, and good script, and a nice story, but it felt a bit heavy-handed with the racism issue. I guess I'd compare it to Crash, in that its a nice idea but it shoves its issues down your throat, instead of gently inserting them in your ear without you noticing.

[Lizard_King]

Well, maybe it is not that glaring, seeing as no one else has mentioned it. Spoiler to follow:


There is one little piece of paper on the entire planet that proves I am an evil Nazi so of course I preserve it in my safe deposit box until someone smarty pants crook comes along who can steal it.
Duh. It's right up there with the "explain your evil plan to the good guy moments before killing him in an unnecessarily complicated manner" bad guy MO. And if Nazis aren't standard, card carrying Guild of Calamitous Intent members, I don't know who is.

But yeah, that is a good point that kind of deep sixes the whole film.

[Enduro_Man]

There is one little piece of paper on the entire planet that proves I am an evil Nazi so of course I preserve it in my safe deposit box until someone smarty pants crook comes along who can steal it.

Villians would we well advised to prove their Nazi bona fides by wearing expensive watches with swastikas engraved on their back plates, a la The Sum of All Fears. I think it was Ebert who brought up another point: Isn't Chris Plummer a bit, er, young to be a Nazi financier? Or even a Nazi financier's gofer?

As for the actor-on-a-dolly shot, I recall it being used to great effect in at least one episode of Parker Lewis Can't Lose.