Both movies are must-see masterpieces, but everyone knows that already, and I see no point in rehashing the much-deserved praise you can find all over the internets. I enjoyed them enough to watch them each three times in a row, but I do have bones to pick, and at the risk of obscuring my appreciation, I think it would be more interesting for the sake of discussion to focus on those more negative points.
Point Blank is guilty of a HUUUUGE pet peeve of mine, in its dalliance with "ambiguity." The ambiguity in question is between a literal reading of everything that follows the shooting of Walker at Alcatraz, and some non-literal interpretation, such as that Walker then inhabits some existentialist hell, or that it's all in his head a la "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge." Even worse, the "ambiguity" is laid on so thick that the literal interpretation becomes almost unsupportable.
This device is a darling of critics and pseudo-sophisticates, but it's the shabbiest cliche of all, and I have only scorn for creators who resort to it. In general, it's a failure of nerve, a tic of self-consciousness, an apology for something the creator lacks the guts to present without apology. Most often, the ambiguity gives the creator an out for anything that might invite sniffly highbrow criticism or ridicule if presented sincerely and straightforwardly. Monsters, for example, are "tacky," so in The Descent, they're subverted by ambiguity suggesting a psychological interpretation--thus vitiating the central horror and appeal of the movie. I don't find that the least bit smart or sophisticated. I find it weak and contemptible. In Point Blank, I'm actually inclined to take a more forgiving view, because there it functions more as an excuse to take such an experimental approach with such an established genre as film noir. But the stylization, color, fragmentation, etc. need no excuse and would come across all the more powerfully without it. Oh well! Just to wrap this point up on a more positive note, Point Blank is one of the grooviest-looking movies I've ever seen, and if this ambiguity is the price to pay for that, I guess I can live with it.
My chief complaint with Get Carter is the preposterously coincidental way Carter learns the secret he can't quite seem to beat out of anyone. That projector just happens to be set up with the one film that suddenly makes all the pieces fall into place?!? Again, oh well!Now, let's hash out this question of who's scarier--Walker or Carter? Walker, apparently, is the favorite by far, and considering how incorrect that is, I can only think of a couple reasons why people would believe it. First, there's Lee Marvin in the role, with his "scowl that could overturn dump trucks." Second, I think a lot of people may be conflating the Parker of the novels with the Walker in Point Blank. But Walker isn't Parker. He arguably owes as much to Camus's Stranger as he does to Stark's Hunter. Kimberly Lindbergs has a classic post at Cinebeats that highlights just how much wounded vulnerability underlies, defines, and drives the character of Walker.
Here are a few arguments for why Carter is scarier:
- Walker is a victim from the get-go, having been cuckolded by his wife and "friend," then shot by the latter and left for dead by both in a dingy cell on Alcatraz while they got away with his share of the loot. Carter, on the other hand, goes home to investigate the death of his brother, in open defiance of the wishes of his mob bosses in London.
- Contrast Walker's sullen passivity when he finally "confronts" his wife, and his entirely passive role in her death (he wakes up to discover she's overdosed on sleeping pills) with Carter's frightful violence toward Glenda when he learns of her role in everything--he half-drowns her in the bath, stuffs her in the trunk of his car, then sardonically watches as the thugs he's just routed try to get back at him by shoving his car off a pier.
- Walker gets a bruising in the jazz club that nobody comes close to inflicting on Carter.
- Walker only actually kills one person--Reese--and has a strictly indirect role in every other death in the film. Carter shoots one of the thugs from London, knifes a fairly peripheral character to death for the hell of it, and kills Eric at the end by using a Scotch bottle in his mouth as a spike and the butt of a shotgun as a sledgehammer.
- When Walker throws Reese off a building, he lands in the street in front of a car that stops in time. When Carter throws someone off a building, the guy crashes onto a car, killing the driver and injuring two children. This is illustrative of how much more violence, death, and destruction Carter brings in his wake and is willing to unleash.
- Walker rocks back on his heels and becomes hesitant and doubtful when dumpy little Brewster stands up to him. By contrast, Carter squeezes local mob boss Kinnear to deliver Eric to him, then pulls the trigger on him anyway, by dumping in his pond a hooker he injected with an overdose of heroin (another savage act of vengeance), then calling the cops for a massive raid on his drug-and-sex party.
- Walker fades into the shadows at the end with a brooding frown--and without his 93,000 dollars. Carter, having solved the mystery and slaughtered everyone he wanted to, breaks into laughter worthy of Heath Ledger's Joker (just before another hitman guns him down, to be sure).
12 comments:
I completely agree with your opinion on ambiguity, it is on a par with the 'it was all just a dream' approach.
It's been too long since I've seen either of thetwo movies, but your point about "ambiguity" is a good one.
I still disagree about Carter being scarier though - essentially your 7 points just illustrate that Carter is the bigger thug, but I find that to be of secondary importance.
To address your arguments in order:
1. This is somewhat unfair, since the betrayal is basically what creates Walker in the first place and although we don't get a glimpse into Carter's past, there's plenty of hints that he was "created" in similar circumstances (e.g. his family situation). I'd also argue that Carter is the bigger victim given what we learn about his life, he just lacks the level of self-awareness Wallker -who knows exactly what he is- possesses. (Of course, there's also the possibility that Walker has returned from the grave of course, which would make him scarier by default).
2. I find Walker's lack of emotion (and the fact that this is what "kills" his wife) far scarier than Carter's blind rage, but I guess that's a matter of taste.
3.+4.+5.+6. To me, all these points just show that Carter is the bigger thug, what makes Walker so scary though is that he goes beyond that dimension and becomes something akin to a force of nature - with Walker it simply doesn't matter if he gets hurt, you just know that he'll reach his goal eventually.
7.Again, I find someone willing to pursue me on principle alone (and with no emotions involved) far scarier than someone like Carter, who is -despite all his ruthlessness- at least still in possession of an emotional core and thus considerably more "human" than Walker.
Never read the novel btw. and Lee Marvin seems to humanize the character more than he adds "toughness" through his screen persona (and the cinebeats post seems to make the same point), so I don't think these two points have influenced the voting much.
Exactly, Mick! I dislike anything that diminishes the punch of an important element in a work like this.
Anonymous, your rebuttal of my first point is well-taken. But then, when you suggest Walker might be "scarier by default" for having returned from the grave, I'd also counter that he might be far, far less scary by default if he's just having an "Owl Creek Bridge" moment, which is as likely an interpretation. In comparing these two, I think we have to take those nonrealistic readings off the table, unless one can be established more firmly than a maybe.
On the second point, I wasn't contrasting Walker's "lack of emotion" with Carter's "blind rage," but rather Walker's passivity with Carter's activity. When confronted by women, Walker seems to retreat into himself, go sit down somewhere, and sulk. Carter, on the other hand, keeps going full steam ahead--which, if I understand correctly, is your main argument for what makes Walker scarier, that he always presses forward "like a force of nature."
I don't accept your characterization of points 3, 4, and 5 as "just show[ing] that Carter is the bigger thug." They're the clearest objective measures and indications of how much more violent and deadly Carter is, and I fail to see how Walker "goes beyond that dimension" when in fact he falls short of it.
Point 6 belongs more with point 7, to my mind, and these speak directly to your main argument that "you just know that [Walker]'ll reach his goal eventually." Somebody--Carroll O'Connor, no less--stops Walker in his tracks and gives him pause, however momentarily, in a way that nobody quite does to Carter. Finally, Carter really does reach his goal, but Walker doesn't. Walker never gets his money, and we're given no reason to believe he ever will.
Interesting points, but I'm not convinced yet. Btw--if you respond, may I call you something besides "anonymous"?
Walker is tougher. There's no way you're going to out argue that.
Weird. I never saw anything ambiguous about The Descent at all. There's a somewhat tired dream sequence twist at the end in which the protagonist thinks she's escaped, but really hasn't. But I didn't see any suggestion that the monsters weren't entirely real.
Anonymous--that's what you say.
D--I forget how it's actually suggested in the film, but I definitely recall it being discussed as intentional in the commentary.
Curt, it's been quite a while since I've seen the movies, so I might get some details wrong, but:
1. Good point about the "Owl Creek Bridge moment" and ignoring the unrealistic ending, however, I should add that these possible interpretations already point to another distinction we should make, namely who's scarier and who's more efficient/likely to succeed, which are two entirely different questions IMO.
2. I know that you were referring to Walker's passivity and Carter's activity, but I think the important issue is what triggers these responses - Carter keeps going because he's primarily motivated by his emotions, resp. his activity is an expression or outlet for his motivations (which are primarily based on his emotions), whereas Walker is entirely devoid of emotions - for him, the question of revenge is a matter of principle and even at that only on a very abstract (academic?) level (=even treating revenge as an abstract principle isn't derived from his emotional state).
In this sense Walker is a force of nature, because the outcome is ultimately unavoidable, just like a storm or hurricane can't be prevented from happening.
3. I admit that saying that points 3-6 merely show that Carter is the bigger thug is a bit of an oversimplification, but the baisc idea is that Carter becomes scary because of his acts, whereas Walker is scary due to the motivation behind his acts - in Walker's case it really doesn't matter what he does, the essential point is that we know that he'll do whatever necessary to reach his goal. Carter on the other hand becomes only scary because of his actions, the underlying motive on the other hand is a fairly justified one (the old "he's the lesser evil and thus the audience identifies with his POV" approach).
4. The fact that Walker is seemingly "stopped in his tracks" from time to time only serves to make him scarier to me - I read these moments as situations where Walker is given a chance at redemption, resp. a chance to abandon his (by normal standards) insane quest and become a fully fledged human again instead of an almost robot-like enforcer of an abstract principle.
Of course, this reading also assumes that he ultimately reaches his goal, which to me was never the money, but revenge or justice as interpreted according to his morale code.
I'm also not sure if Carter truly reaches his goal - he manages to accomplish his "mission" for sure, but in the end it doesn't bring him any sense of closure nor doesit make any difference to anyone else (except for the ones that got killed of course).
I guess in the end it depends on what you find scarier, abstract ideas or (concrete) acts, but if it is the first, the actual actions of Carter and Walker are only of secondary importance.
Two points I'd like to add:
I think what makes Walker scary is nicely illustrated by the reactions of several characters in the film - his wife kills herself not because she's afraid that Walker will (physically) harm her or because of a bad conscience, she simply can't handle the lack of nay kind of emotional/human response from Walker, so in a sense it is the absence of a physical threat that kills her, which is far scarier IMO. The syndicate reacts equally baffled when dealing with Walker - the reactions to his demands are often incredulous, because from their point of view his behaviour defies logic - he doesn't seem to be motivated by revenge (other than as an abstract principle), he doesn't act like you'd expect someone to act in his situation and his demands seem almost insignificant as a motivation for going up against them (and equally outrageous at the same time).
2. I'd be interested to know what you think of payback (the "Point Blank" remake starring Mel Gibson). Gibson's Porter is a lot closer to Carter and far more active than Walker, but I think this is what makes him less scary in comparison (to Walker).
Hey Mark--interesting points, especially number 4. I can certainly see where you're coming from, at least, even if I'm not entirely won over.
I saw PAYBACK before I was aware of the Parker novels or POINT BLANK, and it didn't make enough of an impression for me to be able to compare it later when I did read the novels and see POINT BLANK. I know the theatrical cut has been much maligned, but someone whose opinion I trust tells me the fairly recent director's cut is loads better, and pretty much a straight adaptation of the first Parker novel.
On further reflection, maybe Carter and Walker just don't make for a good comparison - Carter is scary because of what he does, whereas Walker is scary because of who (and maybe that should be "what" too) he is.
I'm wondering if the same can be said about other characters too, eg. Frankenstein (the creature) is scary because of what he is, whereas someone like Dracula is scary because of what he does (and I think if we focused only on the deeds committed by both, most people would find Dracula scarier too, but -just like in the Walker/Carter comparison- that approach already favors one character and leads to a flawed result).
You're right. Carter is much meaner than Walker, who suffers from that very fashionable 70's malaise.
Saw Carter some time ago, appalled at the violence (old lady here) but couldn't forget (and still can't) the last scene with his triumphant/tragic "laughter". Just saw Point Blank first time last night - was looking for someone to compare the two- EXCELLENT JOB you did! Thanks!
Post a Comment