Bo and Ben discuss Ben Affleck’s fascinating neo-noir debut, “Gone Baby Gone.” They both praise its intelligence and its moral ambiguity. They both agree that it’s not quite a masterpiece because Affleck’s visual sensibility or control isn’t quite at elite level. Furthermore, the film has structural problems. Bo doesn’t like some of the unrealistically clever, cocky dialogue for Casey Affleck, arguing that it would be more poignant if it remained consistently realistic. Ben likes the dialogue and doesn’t quite agree.

Both agree that most of the performances are excellent, especially Amy Ryan’s. But they also both agree that Michelle Monaghan’s performance is a weak spot. The script likely doesn’t do her any favors either. Surprisingly, Bo argues that Morgan Freeman’s performance is another weak spot. He is too avuncular and stoic to convey the depth of hurt and guilt that his character should feel.

For whatever its flaws, though, the movie remains haunting and morally ambiguous in a way that few do. This is what mainstream filmmaking should be about.

Ebert’s review: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/gone-baby-gone-2007

Other reviews: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gone_baby_gone

Set in an unspecified time in the future, Robocop is a cyberpunk film about the police officer Alex Murphy who is transferred into a crime-ridden district in a dystopian Detroit. In his first action with his new partner, Lewis, he pursues Clarence Boddicker’s gang into their hideout, an abandoned steel mill. They decide to go in without backup, and Murphy is cornered and brutally murdered. But the dead do not stay dead. Murphy is resurrected by the corporation, Omni Consumer Products (OCP) as part of a program to create a robot police officer after the failure of an earlier model ED-209. At first, Robocop is a success, but some of Murphy’s memories come back, and he eventually discovers his killers. His pursuit of them leads to the second in command at OCP, a cutthroat executive named Dick Jones.

Robocop is most immediately a biting social satire, which mocks American consumer culture, privatization, and, of course, the news. However, it’s also an existential meditation on the nature of humanity; and even a Jesus allegory, with Murphy as the crucified and resurrected savior of Detroit.

Roger Ebert review: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/robocop-1987

Robocop and Jesus: https://gizmodo.com/the-original-robocop-was-a-christ-allegory-1523956164

John McClane is a New York cop visiting his estranged wife at a Christmas party in Los Angeles. Bad timing. The building is taken over by Hans Gruber, a sleek and sophisticated thief and his motley crew of associates, who hope to steal its 640, 000, 000 dollars in bearer bonds. Unlike the stereotypical action hero of the 80s, John McClane desperately hopes that the police arrive and only reluctantly works to thwart Gruber’s plans. Easily one of the better action flicks ever produced, Die Hard is deftly directed and intellectually rewarding. It satirizes authority, criticizes masculinity, and deconstructs the action and western genres, becoming a kind of commentary on American consumer culture and capitalism.

Bo and Ben praise it, criticize some of its sins, and lament that this was the apogee of McTiernan’s career.

Roger Ebert’s review: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/die-hard-1988

A celebration of Hans Gruber: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/01/alan-rickman-hans-gruber

Academic literature: https://www.jstor.org/stable/737639?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Richard Brody’s account of watching for first time: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/i-watched-die-hard-for-the-first-time

In their second Cinemapod, Bo and Ben discuss the horror classic, Halloween, which either invented or cemented many of the familiar tropes of the slasher genre: The libidinous teens getting stalked by a killer, the final virginal girl, the person who says “I’ll be right back,” but doesn’t come back. Many slasher films are cheap and exploitative, but Halloween is not. It’s a true work of art. The composition is astonishing; and the cinematography by Dean Cundey is a marvel.

Bo argues that Halloween is an expert retelling of Moby Dick, with Dr. Loomis as the avenging Ahab monomaniacally pursuing Michael Myers, his white whale. Ben isn’t quite convinced but agrees that the metaphysically charged dialogue adds intellectual heft to the film. Both agree that it is a legitimate masterpiece that has no rival in the slasher genre.

Roger Ebert review: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/halloween-1979

Gene Siskel review: http://www.pleasence.com/halloween/H1-SISK.HTML

Pauline Kael review: http://www.pleasence.com/halloween/H1-KAEL.HTML

Maya Zhou essay: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2326&context=scripps_theses

Overview of movie history: https://horrorfilmhistory.com/wp/halloween-1978/

In this week’s Nurtural Disaster, Bo and Ben inaugurate the film review genre of their podcast, discussing the gritty 70s action film, Dirty Harry. The film stars Clint Eastwood, who plays the laconic, misanthropic, and perpetually glowering inspector, Harry Callahan, as he pursues the sadistic hippie killer, Scorpio, played by Andrew Robinson. The film is well directed by Don Siegel and much more aesthetically accomplished than a straightforward action film. It’s a real work of art, and expertly depicts a seedy San Francisco full of depraved and licentious criminals, debauchees, and, of course, hippies.

Also, it’s surprisingly humorous. Although it’s mostly played straight, there are hints that Eastwood didn’t take his titular hero too seriously. And the script contains classic dialogue such as, “I know what you're thinking: "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, punk?”

Nevertheless, it is a flawed and excessively didactic film that sometimes undermines its characters too make a heavy-handed point about the ineffectiveness of bureaucracy and liberal excesses in the criminal justice system.

When released, it caused controversy, which hasn’t died since. Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert, two the great film critics in history, decried its “fascistic” moral message, while praising its undeniable power.

Bo and Ben note that the “fascist” claim is ludicrous. Harry certainly resents the increasingly inefficient bureaucracy that has grown around the criminal justice system, and he behaves more like a vigilante than a police officer from time to time, but the other police officers and district attorney do not condone his behavior (as they would in a “fascist” film); rather, they enthusiastically denounce it. Furthermore, Dirty Harry was a response to real liberal overreach in the courts and rising crime in the streets.

Whatever one’s ultimate judgment of the film, it is a timeless piece of culture, endlessly imitated. Bo and Ben both conclude that the film largely deserves the credit (and the controversy) it has received and generated and consider it a near masterpiece is artistically and thematically rich. It’s not a dumb action film. It’s an intelligent piece of art that only occasionally lapses into the overt didacticism that both Bo and Ben bemoan.

Roger Ebert’s review: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dirty-harry-1971

Pauline Kael’s review: https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2017/12/28/dirty-harry-saint-cop-review-by-pauline-kael/