Seven Psychopaths (2012), directed by Martin McDonagh

(I took a much needed break from horror to watch this “normal” movie. Don’t worry, I’m going to see Sinister tonight.)

In Bruges is one of my favourite movies from the past decade or so, so I have been pretty stoked to see Martin McDonagh’s followup film Seven Psychopaths, coming about four years after Bruges. In Bruges has this magnificent character-driven plot matched with a wonderful cinematic quality, larger, overarching concepts and a hilarious sense of humour running through it all. It’s a great movie.

Seven Psychopaths is not as great a movie, but it’s a pretty darn good one.

It’s about…well, a lot of things. It’s about these dognappers who steal dogs and then return them for reward money. It’s about this writer, Marty (Colin Ferrell), who is trying to write his screenplay, Seven Psychopaths, but is being slowed down by a lack of inspiration and alcohol. It’s about a killer who only kills mobsters and leaves behind a jack of hearts at the crime scene. Also there’s a part with Tom Waits and a bunny. So lots going on.

All of this is delivered with a buddy comedy type feel, splashed with intense violence, a postmodern trim and a coating of existential philosophy.

McDonagh is the type of director who can make this chaos work, and he does for the most part. Despite all the ins and outs of the plot, the film flows smoothly and makes sense. The characters are fantastic, as are the actors playing them. It has everything that makes an action comedy work, but with a little more substance to it, thanks to McDonagh’s unique take on storytelling. And, of course, what makes it all come together is the humour, which is excellent. Laugh out loud even.

I’m going to be this guy again and talk about the film’s use of racial, sexist and homophobic slurs. The film is littered with them, especially the latter two.

I had a great, real life example last night of why these things can be troublesome. Behind me in the cinema was a group of three or four college guys who were drinking a mickey of vodka and obviously felt everyone else in the theatre would appreciate their comments as much as they obviously did.

Most of their comments were just general jackass hoots and hollers and declaring the return of Chris Walken whenever he said something slightly odd (I would bet money these guys have never seen The Deer Hunter, so they need to shut the hell up and show some respect). But at one point they started to compare an older black woman in the film to Aunt Jemima (which is nauseatingly racist). And then, once Woody Harrelson’s character used the n-word they decided that must be okay then and used it too.

I myself have used the argument many times that characters in the movie using homophobic or racist or sexist slurs is just an honest reflection of their characters. I still believe that’s true for many movies. But in something like this, something designed to be “cool”, with characters that are funny and stylish, that are going to be quoted ad nauseam, a film you know is going to be a college hit, can’t we try a little harder? Isn’t there a more intelligent way to use these words? Or hey, maybe even not use them? I don’t think not having the characters use ‘f-’ or ‘bitch’ throughout the movie would have in any way taken away from it.

McDonagh is a smart man and an intelligent director. He questions these pitfalls even as he commits them. There’s a great part where Walken’s character, Hans, asks Marty why his female characters are all so useless. He says he’s known a lot of women and most of them are able to at least string a sentence together. A part I really liked too is when Hans rewrites a part of the script with a topless hooker so that she is in a pretty dress and wants to have a conversation.

It’s a bit of a cop-out because then you can do anything you want and no one can hold you accountable because you’ve pointed it out yourself. I wrote a term paper like that for a class on media studies claiming that the teacher had to either fail me or give me an A because I recognized the shortcomings of my own argument (in a nutshell). I got a B-. I deserved it.

That’s how I feel about McDonagh’s handling of the use of slurs and his depiction of women. He gets a B-. If he knows his approach is flawed, as he admits, why not try to do a better job?

But most of the film is much better than that. And at least McDonagh has the wherewithal to question these things and not just slip them in unnoticed like in most Hollywood movies.

It’s no In Bruges, but Seven Psychopaths is still one of the more interesting and entertaining movies out lately. And I’m still intrigued to see what McDonagh comes up with next, because he is certainly a talented writer and director, who I feel can do a lot better and has a lot more to offer.

Seven Psychopaths is in theatres Friday.

Rampart (2011), directed by Oren Moverman

The trailer for Rampart tells us that this is going to be a haywire, crash-to-pass ride through the life of the “most corrupt cop you’ve ever seen on screen”. It’s almost gleeful in its challenge to shock and disgust. It looks like a great exploitation film.

Well, it is and it isn’t. The film, as it turns out, is a bit more serious than a romp and, I’m sorry Woody, but compared to my man Nic Cage in Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call – New Orleans, you’re a rookie. This is more of a realty bites film on the downfall of a corrupt cop, the pitting of a soul and the results of a system that bred corruption and abuse of power.

Admittedly some of this was lost on me. I didn’t know anything about the Rampart scandal going into the movie and didn’t even realize what the title referred to. I know little about LAPD culture or police relations in that city or anything else that this movie is diving into. I’m sure it had some interesting insights into that whole world, but they were lost on me.

So if, like me, those sort of topics are outside of your radar what you’re left with is basically a character study. “Date Rape” Dave is certainly an interesting character. He comes out of a system that celebrated corruption and hard policing. He is a remnant though. The system is already changing, Dave’s cohorts have already fallen or retired, he has survived this long because of knowledge of legalities and a refusal to compromise.

Why are we so interested in corrupt cops? We’ve had more than enough films on the subject. There’s Training Day, Pride and Glory, the two Bad Lieutenant films, Brooklyn’s Finest and, of course, Police Academy 6: On the Take. We certainly do like the “men behaving badly” type characters and I suppose it’s all the more juicy when that person is actually paid, by us, to do “good”. Maybe it makes us feel better to know that even those paid to uphold the law have a hard time being good people. Maybe we’re just sick and like watching cops fall from grace. Who knows.

So listen, I’m beating around the bush here I realize. I think there’s a lot of interesting stuff going on in Rampart, but I’m not sure that it adds up to any sort of significant whole. It’s one of those films where I feel like I got an interesting look into a life and into a subject, but I’m not sure I gained anything out of it. Nobody can deny how amazing Woody Harrelson is in this film, and it would take somebody hard indeed not to be drawn into his character and the story, but I’m not sure I took much away from it beyond that.

The end bothered me. Sometimes I like the open ending, but I feel like it’s used to much and that it’s a cop out (pun intended) on having to actually decide on a conclusion. It can also feel like a cheap trick to make a film “meaningful”, like by throwing on a open ending it’s meant to make you go “Oh, just like real life!”. Personally I wanted to know what happened to Dave. I mean, I know it seems fairly obvious. His days are numbered. But I wanted to know if he turns it around, or kills himself or what. Do his daughters take him back? Does he feel shame for what he has done?

One more thing I’ve been wanting to write about, and it comes up again here: the ambiguous “something’s wrong” sex scene. You know the one, two characters start going at it and then something goes wrong and one apologizes, the other says “It’s okay” and you’re left wondering what the hell happened. It’s like the filmmaker doesn’t want to say what happens and can only muster a “You know…Come on, you know.”

The problem is we don’t always know and you end up having that conversation with someone after the film where you both say “Yeah, not sure, but I think…” I mean, we’re all adults watching these movies, let’s have the characters say “It’s alright if you can’t get it up” or “I’m sorry I orgasmed so quickly”. These are always important character points, like in Shame, so let’s get it straight.

In this film Dave sleeps with a woman and then covers his eyes with a pillow and she looks frustrated. I didn’t get it. Did he not perform? Was he just being distant after they had had sex? Is it a KKK thing he was pulling, given he’s clearly racist and she was African-American? What’s the deal Moverman, tell. us.

This is a performance film, albeit a compelling one. Harrelson, who was also fabulous in Moverman’s The Messenger, is captivating and complex here. Dave is a horrible excuse for a human being and yet you can’t look away. I still didn’t feel like the film as a whole rose above the performance, but Rampart is nonetheless a fascinating watch.

Rampart is available on DVD and Blu-ray.