The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) Review

In his previous outing, Blue Valentine, director Derek Cianfrance explored what it means to both fall in and out of love. Widely regarded as one of the best films of 2010, Blue Valentine established Cianfrance as a cinematic talent destined for greatness. His next project sees him reunite with muse Ryan Gosling in what is his most ambitious film yet.

If Blue Valentine was Cianfrance’s answer to the rom-com, then the Place beyond the Pines can be viewed as his unique take on the action thriller. Needless to say, this isn’t Bad Boys; Michael Bay fans need not apply. With Place beyond the Pines, Cianfrance examines the nature of the father son relationship, and highlights the ways in which everyday decisions can impact on an entire legacy.

Ryan Gosling portrays Luke Glanton, a nomadic Moto rider living on the fringes of society. Bradley Cooper plays Avery Cross, an ambitious cop with a powerful father. When Glanton discovers he has a baby son with past fling Rowena (Eva Mendes), he decides to become a father and quits his job as a travelling stuntman. Unable to support his family on minimum wage, Glanton resorts to robbing banks, a decision which changes the lives of both men and their families forever.

The thematic ties between Blue Valentine and Place beyond the Pines are clear. Both films explore the intimate details of human relationships, and make clear the impact of decisions and actions on characters and their families. With Place beyond the Pines, Cianfrance attempts to tie three closely linked stories in order to create one overriding narrative strand. Whilst the film is a success in this regard, its narrative structure highlights some problems.

The first act follows the financial and moral struggles of Glanton as he attempts to reconnect with his family. Gosling is on supreme form, showcasing yet another performance of muted subtlety reminiscent of his magical turn in Drive. Glanton is by far the most interesting character in the film, and his story arc makes for compelling viewing. And therein lies the rub. The first chapter of the film is so damn good that when the focus switches to the character of Avery Cross, one can’t help but feel cheated. While still a related story, the narrative shift is somewhat jarring.

Thankfully Cooper is utterly engrossing as the not entirely likeable Cross. Like Glanton, Cross is trapped in a system against which he struggles desperately. Both men strive to do the right thing, but inevitably fail as the pressure mounts. A brief appearance by Ray Liotta on scintillating form greatly helps the sagging middle section of the film regain momentum.

Where the film most struggles is in its final act, where the children of Glanton and Cross attempt to navigate the pitfalls of the local high school. Thematically, this is where Cianfrance drops his atom bombs. Narratively, however, this is Place beyond the Pines at its weakest point. Despite strong performances throughout, the plot slows to a standstill before working up to the big finale. It’s notoriously difficult to introduce new characters late in a film, so when Cianfrance switches the focus onto two completely unknown protagonists two hours into the film the narrative stalls.
That being said, Place Beyond the Pines excites and delights in equal measure. The high tracking shots of Glanton at one with his motor bike on the deserted rural roads are mesmerising, and linger in the mind long after the credits roll. Tension is sky high during the robbery scenes, and the story arcs of both Glanton and Cross are engaging throughout. Better still is Gosling's post robbery jig with a friends confused dog to the sound of Bruce Springsteen's Dancing in the Dark.

Despite some structural flaws, Place beyond the Pines remains essential viewing. The first hour is quite possibly the finest piece of filmmaking I’ve witnessed this year. Yes, it sags in places, but for the most part the story is riveting, and the acting is undeniably top notch throughout. Highly recommended. 

Looking Back at Mean Streets (1973)

Martin Scorsese is almost certainly one of the greatest directors alive today. He is the reclusive genius responsible for some of the most influential films of the past four decades.

The vast critical acclaim Scorsese has received throughout his career seems mostly to settle on Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas. His more recent works Shutter Island, The Departed, The Aviator and Gangs of New York have awakened an entirely new cinema going generation to his extensive film making talents. However, even with such a stellar filmography, rarely has Scorsese matched the blazing authenticity of his early work in 1973’s Mean Streets.

Both written and directed by Scorsese, Mean Streets proved to be the fervent director’s real breakthrough. Filmed on a miniscule budget of $500,000 and featuring a largely unknown cast (at the time); Mean Streets was an unforeseen success. A significant factor of this success was undoubtedly down to the two young male leads; newcomers Harvey Keitel and Robert DeNiro, who are simply mesmerising throughout.  

Mean Streets follows Charlie, a small time hood trying to scrape a living in the Lower East Side of New York. Charlie is torn between living life on the street, and maintaining his faith as a devout Catholic; a line Scorsese himself was forced to walk in his younger days. In a haze of guilt, Charlie takes crazed Johnny Boy under his wing, as a form of symbolic penance. However, Johnny Boys reckless nature soon spells trouble for Charlie and his aspirations in the neighbourhood of Little Italy…

Mean Streets showcases the striking quality of the young DeNiro’s acting ability with his performance as the unhinged menace Johnny Boy. DeNiro’s breakout role stands in stark contrast to performances the actor would later become famous for. Indeed, the unique form of introspective brooding that DeNiro has become synonymous with is noticeably absent in Mean Streets.  Instead, Johnny Boy is a delight to behold; disturbingly charming, menacing, chaotic, maniacally violent and surprisingly funny.

Harvey Keitel’s Charlie is the perfect counterbalance to the psychotic Johnny Boy. Keitel perfectly portrays the conflicted Charlie; his soul in turmoil and his heart confused. It is testament to Keitel’s ability as an actor that he is able to bring a considerable degree of likeability and empathy to what is a largely unfavourable character. Indeed, as the eyes and ears of the audience in this violent, unforgiving world; his performance is of utmost importance, and deservedly launched Keitel’s career into the upper echelon of the Hollywood dream machine.

Charlie’s delicate religious sensibilities prove to be a key theme throughout Mean Streets. The plot itself deals mainly with Charlie’s unique idea of penance through helping the renegade Johnny Boy, and his fear of hell is apparent at many points in the film. Charlie is continually seen to expose his hand to a naked flame; this reminds him of “the pain of hell” more clearly than reciting Hail Marys ever could. Also of interest is Scorsese’s extravagant use of lighting throughout the film. In one of the most profound settings; Tony’s bar, the tavern is enveloped in a sinister red glow, clearly symbolic in depicting the idea of Charlie’s omnipresent fear of hell.

Mean Streets is host to many of the features that have since become trademarks of Scorsese’s filmmaking. The conflicted characters, eclectic rock soundtrack, brutal violence, religious symbolism and dazzling camera work are all present and correct. The limited budget of Mean Streets prevented Scorsese from depicting an elaborate, hugely stylised vision of Mafia life as he was able to later accomplish in Goodfellas and Casino. Instead, the raw, almost documentarian feel of Mean Streets screams authenticity, and exudes power to rival even the most celebrated films of the crime genre.

Looking back to 1973, Mean Streets proved to be the film that united two of the greatest cinematic talents of the past century; Martin Scorsese and Robert DeNiro. The incendiary duo would go on to change Hollywood film making forever. For that reason alone, Mean Streets stands as one of the most important films of the last 50 years.

Looking back at the golden years...

Movies, they just don't make them like they used to. Sound familiar?

Early silent films of Murnau and Chaplin have stood the test of time, and are widely regarded as classics. Similarly, the following decades saw the release of behemoths like Casablanca, Citizen Kane and On the Waterfront. Yet most revered of all, is that brief period of filmic creativity that started in the late 1960's before diminishing at the end of the 1970's; the age of New Hollywood.

This "golden age" of cinema ushered in mavericks like Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg, Lucas, Altman, Scott and Malick. These auteurs produced films the likes of which had never been seen before. Indeed, many people believe that the quality and quantity of films produced during this period will never again be matched.

I for one, am sick to death of hearing about the dreadful state contemporary cinema is in. Am I supposed to believe that I will never see a film better than Taxi Driver or Jaws? Bullshit. Granted, there are a lot of very average films gracing today's theatres, and I mean a lot. Giant robots, found footage fiascos, comic books come to life - take your pick. 

However, one only has to glance at the vast array of directing talent to emerge in the last two decades to realise that we are in the midst of something special. The work of Quentin Tarantino, stands as testament to the quality of today's films. Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, Inglourious Basterds and even Django Unchained would stand up to even the best offerings of the 1970's. 

What of Paul Thomas Anderson, who's filmography to date includes Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch Drunk Love, There Will Be Blood and The Master? Is his work lacklustre in comparison to say, Robert Altman? Nonsense. There Will Be Blood would stand as a crowning achievement in any decade, even the "golden age".

What about Christopher Nolan, the man responsible for redefining the blockbuster? Alexander Payne? Sam Mendes? Wes Anderson? Cameron Crowe? David Fincher? Darren Arronofsky? The Coen brothers? Danny Boyle? Robert Zemeckis? David O'Russell? Tim Burton? Peter Jackson? Steven Sodenbergh? The list goes on.

Consider also, how accessible films are now compared to forty years ago. Back in the 70's, audiences were limited with regards to the films they could actually see. Now consider that the films of Lars Von Trier, Tomas Alfredson, Fernando Mereilles and Nicolas Winding Refn are available to a global audience. Also, did I mention Alfonso Cuaron, Michael Haneke, Guillermo Del Toro, Ang Lee or Pedro Almovodar? For the first time ever, foreign independent films have a chance of garnering widespread critical and commercial success.

It's also worth remembering that Scorsese, Spielberg, Scott and Malick are all still making films today. Indeed, Scorsese was awarded with his best director Oscar not for Taxi Driver, nor Raging Bull, but his  2006 crime thriller, The Departed. Similarly, Scott received greatest critical acclaim not for his sci-fi masterworks Bladerunner or Alien, but for his historical epic Gladiator, released in 2000. Spielberg scooped numerous Oscars with Lincoln just mere months ago, and Malick is producing his best ever work with films like The Thin Red Line and Tree of Life.

My point? I don't really have one, other than to appreciate the films we currently have the pleasure of watching. True, the Spielberg's and Scorsese's of this world won't be around forever, but they will leave behind a lasting legacy. A legacy that will be built upon by the new breed; the Christopher Nolan's, Quentin Tarantino's and Paul Thomas Anderson's. Fear not folks, the future is bright.

Golden age? What golden age!