[REVIEW] Sin City
Apr. 17th, 2005 11:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldI caught Sin City this evening. This spoilers-filled Rolling Stone review didn't prepare me for the full impact of Richard Rodriguez' methods and those methods' results. Visually, Sin City is a spectacular film.
One thing that I appreciated about the film was the way that it positioned Basin City as a site of irredeemable corruption in the form of the Roarke religio-political dynasty. Quite apart from reflecting ancient concerns about the corrupting influence of the city, in Miller's original comics Basin City represents a submerged possibility of the American urban landscape. Compare, in the DC Comics universe, Gotham City's role as New York City's mirroring in its id of Gotham City and its superego of Metropolis.
Sin City's vision is exceptionally grim, perhaps excessively so. It is this fundamental excess that keeps me from really enjoying Sin City. This isn't the fault of the actors--Jaime King was convincing in both of her roles, Elijah Wood and Josh Hartnett seemed at first to play against type but turned out to be doing interesting things, Bruce Willis is both a brave actor and a good one, Mickey Rourke's rather good, Alexis Bledel isn't on The Gilmore Girlsany more--but rather of the basic premises of the plot. You don't have to agree with this essay posted on![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
feminist_rage to be suspicious of the sheer number of aggressively competent but sexually voracious female characters in peopling Basin City. Similarly, the film's violence wasn't gratuitous since the abundant and graphic violence did tend to meet the requirements of the plot. Let's not forget the self-consciously hard-bitten and noir dialogue.
But then, somehow, Miller and Rodriguez manage to find humour and hope in the most unexpected ways. What ways? See the film to find out, since I'm not going to spoil you.
One thing that I appreciated about the film was the way that it positioned Basin City as a site of irredeemable corruption in the form of the Roarke religio-political dynasty. Quite apart from reflecting ancient concerns about the corrupting influence of the city, in Miller's original comics Basin City represents a submerged possibility of the American urban landscape. Compare, in the DC Comics universe, Gotham City's role as New York City's mirroring in its id of Gotham City and its superego of Metropolis.
Sin City's vision is exceptionally grim, perhaps excessively so. It is this fundamental excess that keeps me from really enjoying Sin City. This isn't the fault of the actors--Jaime King was convincing in both of her roles, Elijah Wood and Josh Hartnett seemed at first to play against type but turned out to be doing interesting things, Bruce Willis is both a brave actor and a good one, Mickey Rourke's rather good, Alexis Bledel isn't on The Gilmore Girlsany more--but rather of the basic premises of the plot. You don't have to agree with this essay posted on
feminist_rage to be suspicious of the sheer number of aggressively competent but sexually voracious female characters in peopling Basin City. Similarly, the film's violence wasn't gratuitous since the abundant and graphic violence did tend to meet the requirements of the plot. Let's not forget the self-consciously hard-bitten and noir dialogue.But then, somehow, Miller and Rodriguez manage to find humour and hope in the most unexpected ways. What ways? See the film to find out, since I'm not going to spoil you.
