Tony Scott Retrospective: “Revenge” (1990)

Tony Scott was a hot commodity in Hollywood after his one-two punch of “Top Gun” and “Beverly Hills Cop II” and “Revenge” was an interesting follow-up film for him. He must have been delighted at being able to flex his directing muscles in a single film that transcends so many genres.

“Revenge” opens up as almost an epilogue to “Top Gun” with an F-14 stunt flying over the desert. Instead of a regular action picture, after that, the film turns into a light drama, then a bit of a gangster flick, romance, erotic thriller, western, film noir, addiction struggle, tragedy, and, of course, vengeance. The amazing thing is all of these elements not only work, but blend together seamlessly without coming across as a film with an identity crisis.

A great deal of the film's success comes from the performances of the supporting characters. They come in and out of the picture as needed and adjust the atmosphere accordingly. We start off with Jesse Corti as the protagonist's best friend, who offers him sound advice at a time he needs it and is literally hung up on. Replacing him in the story is Joaquin Martinez, who literally saves J's life and brings him back from the dead. When they part ways, instead of giving our hero advice, he gives him a knife. Literally in the same scene, we meet the cowboy played by James Gammon, who serves mostly as a chauffeur for the leading man, but even more effectively as an enabler and, eventually and unknowingly, a benefactor.

Conveniently, this is when Miguel Ferrer shows up, probably in the movie's biggest standout role. Assisted by John Leguizamo (in a nearly mute, but nevertheless, strong performance), the three of them effectively try to keep order in the chaos of a spree of vengeance along the Mexican border. Ferrer's character treats this mission as an amusing game rather than matters of life and death. He's great fun to watch. All the while, Madeleine Stowe languishes away in a brothel, doped up on forced heroin doses given, almost sympathetically, by an androgynous guardian angel played by Luis de Icaza. Peppered throughout the film are the villain's henchmen, at varying degrees of sliminess, many of whom Kevin Costner kills off one by one with increasing indifference.

Anthony Quinn embraces his role as the main bad guy with his usual zeal. He imperceptibly flips between charming and lovable to cold and frightening moment by moment. All throughout the film, his character remains strangely sympathetic and almost justified. By the end of the story, we're not sure we want him to lose. This is punctuated by what he says to Costner when they finally face off at the end: “Perhaps we both deserve to die.”

This may be Tony Scott's most picturesque film in that he really chews up the scenery of Mexico, digging into the dark and dirty underbelly of that country's subculture. Dirt sticks to sweat, rooms are lit by an excessive amount of candles, a feeling of distrust and uncertainty permeates the film, and anyone could die at any time (and many do). It's easy to see why Quentin Tarantino called this Tony Scott's “masterpiece.” I wouldn't say it's Tony Scott's best film, but it's definitely his most passionate.

Tony Scott Retrospective: “Beverly Hills Cop II” (1987)

The first “Beverly Hills Cop” was originally conceived as an action piece for Sylvester Stallone. A renegade cop from Detroit teaches a bunch of cushy California cops hung up on rules how to be tough. It's the perfect formula for an action picture, really. However, Stallone's outrageous demands and constant rewrites eventually had him drop out. Paramount decided to take a chance on their exponentially rising star Eddie Murphy in what would be his first leading role in a motion picture. When Murphy signed on (turning down a supporting role in “Ghostbusters” for this opportunity), the film immediately pivoted to more of a comedy. The crucial action aspects remained and there were dramatic moments, but for all intents and purposes, “Beverly Hills Cop” was a comedy. It was also a huge hit, so a sequel was inevitable. Critics assumed it would be even more of a comedy than the first.

Eddie Murphy was at the height of his popularity in 1987 (his concert film “Raw” came out the same year) and “Beverly Hills Cop II” was the first film he had a hand in writing. Maybe it was his idea to up the action or maybe it was the studio's. Paramount just enjoyed the success from “Top Gun” the year before, so it's reasonable to assume producers Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer felt they were onto something and thus brought their “Top Gun” director on to helm “Beverly Hills Cop II” and go with the vision of it being more of an action flick.

To be fair, “Beverly Hills Cop II” is probably the closest thing to a comedy Tony Scott ever made, but it's definitely heavier on the action and lighter on the comedy than its predecessor. Critics didn't generally care for it, but audiences sure did. It not only had the biggest opening weekend of the year, but it was also the top-grossing film in 1987. Impressive for an R-rated film at that time. Every top-grossing film in the 80's before that was rated PG (including “Top Gun” the year before). Tony Scott demonstrated he was no mere one-hit wonder.

The brilliance of “Cop II” is it repeats a number of elements that worked well in the first one without coming across as a retread. Both films begin with Axel Foley undercover as a fast-talking huckster. When a close friend of his is shot, he invites himself into the Beverly Hills investigation where he is not wanted, but sorely needed. He cons his way in and out of sticky situations by creating (hysterically funny) characters on the fly and flashing his badge so people can't get a good look at it, but conveniently accept him as an authority figure. Rosewood and Taggart sit in a parked car and pass the time with pithy conversation akin to an old married couple. Our heroes gratuitously visit a strip club, there's a car chase with a big rig destroying cars while a toe-tapping Pointer Sisters song plays in the background, and there's a big shoot out at the end where the protagonists are out-manned and out-gunned but nevertheless prevail. Yet somehow, all these reoccurrences feel fresh rather than recycled. I put the credit almost solely with Tony Scott's direction. This is the only sequel he directed, but I often wonder what other franchises he might have improved upon if given the chance.

It's a great tragedy that “Beverly Hills Cop III” failed to even come close, but let's not get into that. The first two are great companion pieces and that's good enough for me. Incidentally, Stallone took his ideas for the original “Beverly Hills Cop” and made the schlocky action pic “Cobra.” Midway through “Beverly Hills Cop II,” Axel Foley ogles a “Cobra” poster with slightly bemused contempt. I often wonder if this was a personal dig at Stallone from Tony Scott. It's entirely possible, given that Stallone's wife at the time, Brigitte Nielsen, not only starred in “Beverly Hills Cop II,” but allegedly had an affair with Tony Scott during filming. Man, if Tony Scott wasn't a bad ass before, he certainly was by then.

Tony Scott Retrospective: “Top Gun” (1986)

Whenever my dad would upgrade his entertainment system, the movie he would test drive it with was always “Top Gun.” Starting with the gentle pitter-patter of Harold Faltermeyer's synthesized drum machine over the Paramount Pictures logo, it segues into the golden dawn on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Amidst the smoke and the flight deck crew's communication with hand signals, the music crescendos in sync with the warming up engines of the F-14's. Upon the firing of the jet's afterburners and takeoff, the soundtrack jolts into Kenny Loggins' “Danger Zone.” This combination of sights and sounds puts anyone's home movie-watching experience to the ultimate test. There is perhaps no more apropos introduction for a movie you're about to see than the opening credits of “Top Gun.”

There is probably also no greater U-turn in subject matter between a director's debut film and their subsequent sophomore opus than Tony Scott's pivot from “The Hunger” to “Top Gun.” Ironically, what the two films have most in common are the less-than-subtle homoerotic overtones. It's also interesting that “Top Gun” was Tony Scott's only PG-rated film in his entire career. He definitely was shooting for an R-rating, though. When you watch the backlit silhouetted love scene, it very obviously cuts away from when Kelly McGillis is just about to drop her top, as if we're watching a network television edit.

Perhaps that was either Tony Scott's joke on the audience, or an attempt to get the love scene axed altogether. Apparently, when the original cut was shown to test audiences, there was strong feedback that the film needed a sex scene. The reason the post-production footage was so dimly lit was a matter of necessity. Since both Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis had moved onto other projects when it came time to film, they no longer looked like their characters from “Top Gun” anymore. Whatever the reason and regardless of how Scott felt about having to do it, this became the look of most of his subsequent love scenes in his future work (particularly in “True Romance”).

Despite this campy scene with its superfluous tongue probing and all, the film in general holds up pretty well, I'm always surprised by that when I revisit it. It does indeed ooze the 80's (especially with its music), but not to the point of being distracting or embarrassing. Also, credit is due for how influential this movie was. Not only did the Navy see a 500% increase in recruitment after its release (yikes), but this was the movie that paved the way for owning films on home video. Up until this time, VHS tapes were very expensive to own (literally like $100) because they were manufactured to be sold wholesale and thus most everyone was limited to renting any movies they wanted to watch. In the earlier years of VCR's, it was unexplored territory as to whether people wanted to watch any one movie often enough to justify owning it. The popularity of “Top Gun” caught Pepsi's attention and they said, “Hey, if you let us put a specially made commercial at the beginning of the video, we'll make them priced to own immediately upon release.” It was wildly successful and the rest is history.

“Top Gun” was the film that set the standard for Tony Scott's style (smoky sets and inexplicable sweating, for example) and was the one all his other movies were compared to. It was some time before people and advertisements stopped referring to Tony Scott as “the director of 'Top Gun.'” Regardless of Scott's additional great work, “Top Gun” will probably still be the movie for which he is most remembered 100 years from now. However, as a testament to just how huge this movie was, the same will probably also be said for Tom Cruise. That's one helluva movie. One that people will probably still be using to test their home theaters.

Tony Scott Retrospective: “The Hunger” (1983)

During my teenage years, when I was beginning to move from merely watching movies to actually seeing them, I started noticing directors and their particular signatures on the films they made. One of the first directors to stand out to me was Tony Scott. By the time I got to college, he had become one of the few directors whose films I would watch no matter what. Didn't need to see a trailer, didn't care what they were about, just wanted to see artist's craftsmanship. Needless to say, I was devastated when Tony Scott took his own life in 2012. As this year marks a decade since his untimely passing, I decided to take it upon myself to watch his entire feature library throughout the year and give my reactions to each accordingly.

Tony never did meet the critical success or audience reverence of his older brother Ridley, who actually got him into the business. Like most directors, Tony started off doing television commercials. As his talent, experience, and aspirations grew, obviously the next logical step was to move onto feature films. Always thinking big, Tony had his sights set on directing an adaptation of Anne Rice's hugely successful novel “Interview with the Vampire.” While that was not in production yet (and likely tied up with securing the rights), Whitley Strieber's vampire novel “The Hunger” was optioned by MGM and seeking a director. The producers originally wanted Alan Parker (having just directed Pink Floyd's “The Wall”), but Parker recommended Tony Scott, being a fan of his work in commercials.

Long story short: Tony Scott's “The Hunger” received a lukewarm (if not totally indifferent) reception from critics and audiences and vanished into obscurity. I would argue the film was ahead of its time and largely misunderstood. It did indeed eventually become a cult favorite amongst the “Emo” crowd. It is nothing if not an ambitious film and a bold debut.

Even for a vampire film, it is quite unconventional. Scott's visual style is something that has always made him stand out from other directors and you see a lot of the foundations here. He plays heavily with light, particularly the contrast of bright whites with shadows, usually coming from the side rather than above or straight on. We see a lot of dim rooms lit by the surrounding windows and often obscured by blinds, leaving a horizontal stripe configuration on the characters and backgrounds. This is, of course, emphasized by Scott's industrious use of smoke. In every scene, the light cuts through the haze, giving each scene a very ethereal quality. We also see Scott's use of color as a means of storytelling. The film has a predominantly cool palette of grays and blues, which makes the blood, when it flows, all the more stark and shocking. This film comes across more gory than it actually is because the blood clashes with the cold elegance of the film and, when the otherwise subdued and dignified vampires leap upon it like addicts seeking their lifeforce, the title of the film rings true.

As Tony Scott undoubtedly put a great deal of himself into this film, it's no wonder that the lackluster response led him back to the world of advertising. Luckily, producers Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer were both fans of “The Hunger” and, upon seeing Tony Scott's SAAB commercial featuring a jet fighter, took a chance and optioned Tony Scott to direct “Top Gun.” That's for next time, though.

After the disappointed response from “The Hunger,” Scott vowed to never read any of his own press ever again. In that regard, “The Hunger” was a success because, while it's true Scott enjoyed a significant success in the 80's producing flashy, expensive, and loud blockbusters for studios, he still did things his own way. He did not pander to audiences or trends. He may have created a few, though, by always experimenting and pushing the boundaries. We have “The Hunger” to thank for that.

Half a Fascist Nation

Over the past four years, I've fantasized about how I would feel at this moment. How I would react once realizing the Trump presidency was coming to an end. I imagined being unable to contain my elation, literally running and screaming and dancing like Gene Kelly. I thought for sure that was how it would be. Instead, I feel relief. And not the comforting relief, like when you pass a test you didn't study for or when you make it to the restroom just before you're about to soil yourself. I'm talking about the kind of relief like being pulled from a car wreck before the vehicle explodes.

And, like a horrible car wreck, this is where we are at: We just got pulled from the wreck. The past four years have been the car rolling and flying and smashing and breaking and all we've done so far is survive it. What's to come is the trip to the hospital, the surgery, the recuperation, the body cast, the pain medications, the physical therapy, the x-rays, the medical bills. We're just getting started with the hard part. I saw some people posting on social media the final shot from Return of the Jedi where the protagonists, having finally defeated the Empire, embrace each other, smiling amongst the Ewok jubilee. I didn't have the heart to tell them that, if the trajectory this country has been on lately is the STAR WARS trilogy, we're only at the part where R2-D2 & C-3PO flee the Blockade Runner in the escape pod.

I'm not just referring to reparations of all the destruction Trump has wrought, either. I'm talking about the soul of this country. One only needs to look at the election results to see how much work has to been done. Check out this map. This is how the Presidential Election of 1984 turned out. As you can see, Reagan absolutely trounced Mondale. And Reagan, while popular, certainly wasn't a dream candidate. Neither was Mondale an offensive maniac nor a colossal screw up. How could an election during such an optimistic time be so one-sided, while an election of literally Democracy vs. Fascism be as close as this one was? People could feign ignorance in 2016 because Donald Trump, despite shamelessly behaving like the morally-bankrupt insane idiot he is throughout his entire campaign, had not illustrated how truly unfit he was for office until he was in office. But close to half the country wanted to do it all over again. That's a huge problem.

It's not just a huge problem because such a large percentage of the population liked tyranny and enthusiastically wanted more. It's a huge problem because Donald Trump has laid the groundwork for a smart fascist who knows what they're doing to step right in and pick up where Trump left off. And this candidate will be welcomed with open arms. I promise you the GOP is working on that right now at this moment and will continue to for the next four years. PLEASE read this article by Zeynep Tufekci at The Atlantic for a detailed summation of this concept.

It was clear that Trump was always nothing more than a battering ram for the Republican Party. A blunt instrument to see what they could get away with. And easily discarded once his usefulness was spent. Turns out they could get away with a lot. Probably more than they suspected. I must say that I'm pleased my paranoid doomsday predictions turned out to be on a Y2K bug level of inaccuracy. I'm surprised, too. I figured given the indifference shown after Stormy Daniels, the Mueller Report, and actual Impeachment, there's nothing the GOP wouldn't do to keep Trump in power, including contesting the results of a clear cut election to the point where the Supreme Court decided in his favor. “Screw the voters and the whole concept of Democracy.” Guess we finally found the line that Trump enablers were unwilling to cross. I've never in my life been so happy to be wrong.

Although, I suppose it's worth pointing out, the Trump Administration is not over yet. In keeping with my car wreck analogy: If the election results are us being pulled from the wreckage, Inauguration Day will be us having made it to the hospital safely. At the very least, don't be surprised if there's a lot of self-sabotage between now and January 20^th. Ever since the Clinton years, Republicans have been more adamant about the failure of Democrats than their own successes, even to their own detriment. Remember a few years ago when some Conservative judges were voted out and they responded by commuting the sentences of several criminals and just letting them loose purely out of sour grapes? Yeah, expect a lot of that. Even just petty stuff like Trump pissing on the Oval Office carpet is not outside the realm of plausibility.

So, where do we go from here? That's a long and complicated conversation that probably has no end. All I can say is I hope intelligent, pragmatic, honorable people make the decisions from here on out and and never give up. One way to start is to give the election process a complete overhaul: Abolish the Electoral College, enact automatic voter registration, make Election Day a national holiday, and have nationwide mail-in ballots.

Whatever happens, this much is true: We can't rely on the government to take care of us. We can't even rely on the police to protect us. So, we'll have to look after each other. Don't let small things slide. Don't let ignorant declarations go unchallenged. Don't accommodate hate as just a “difference of opinion.” Don't normalize absurd madness. Hold people accountable. Maintain integrity. Demand integrity from others. And never, ever give up. Because the bad guys sure won't. We haven't won. We've merely pivoted.

The Art of Killing Children You're Supposed to be Taking Care Of

Imagine this:

Imagine you have a young child of about 3 or 4 years of age. Imagine putting that child in daycare. Most of you are probably identifying with this easily because you've actually done it.

Now imagine coming to pick your child up from daycare after a full workday and finding them tied to a chair with visible bruises, bloody snot running down their face, excrement in their pants seeping down their legs, and bawling and wailing that they're hungry. You ask the caregiver there what happened and this is their response:

“I told your kid it was nap time and they refused to go to sleep. So, I yelled at them and demanded they lay down and, when they wouldn't, I threw them to the floor. Then, they started crying and I told them to shut up and they wouldn't. So, I stuffed a dirty handkerchief into their mouth to shut them up. They pulled the gag out and started calling me names. I didn't like that, so I slapped your kid around. Then they got really nasty and started throwing stuff at me, so I tied them to the chair and revoked their privileges of food and bathroom breaks and told them they could just sit there until they learned to behave. Then I slapped them around some more while they were tied up just to teach them a lesson.”

Remember, your child is 3 or 4 years old.

You express your outrage and they reply with “Hey, it's their fault. They brought this on themselves.”

You're so angry, you demand to speak to their boss. The administrator of the facility hears what was discussed and says, “I don't believe our caregiver behaved inappropriately based on what I've been told and I see no need for termination or disciplinary action. Bad things happen to bad kids.”

Defeated, you contact the Better Business Bureau with a complaint and they throw up their hands and say, “Without any evidence, there's nothing we can do about it. Perhaps you should just take your child to another daycare center because it sounds like they were causing trouble at the last one.”

Left with no other options, that's what you do. Then, one day, you come to pick up your child again after work and the child is handcuffed and locked in a closet. The caregiver says, “Your kid wouldn't come inside when it was time to fingerpaint. When we dragged them in, they threw a tantrum, so we beat them with sticks. They kept making it worse, so we locked 'em in the closet, bound and gagged. Your child totally deserved it.”

Imagine that happening no matter what daycare center you took them to. Imagine it happening time and time again and being met with the same response every time. Imagine talking to other parents and hearing they had the exact same experiences nationwide. Imagine there was a group of people (like rich families or something) whose kids acted out similarly but weren't punished with anywhere near the same severity and, in some cases, not punished at all.

Imagine these are your kids. How enraged would you be?

No matter what a child does, no matter how mad, loud, destructive, violent, or unruly a child gets, it is the caregiver's responsibility to remain professional, deescalate the situation, and – most importantly – maintain the safety of the child and other children.

The police swear an OATH to protect and serve everyone. I imagine the oaths vary from state to state, but the general gist of it is “On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character, or the public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always uphold the Constitution, my community, and the agency I serve.” I know you just read it, but read it again.

It is not the public's responsibility to be on their best behavior. It is not the public's responsibility to be respectful of the police officer's sensibility. It is not the public's responsibility to keep their feelings and emotions in check. The police do not get to choose who is worthy of help and who is not. The police do not get to be vindictive because they feel disrespected. The police do not get to play judge, jury, and executioner. Like the teacher, parent, or babysitter dealing with an out of control child, they must remain, calm, focused, compassionate, and committed to doing what's best for those they are beholden to look out for.

A friend of mine who is an attorney put it perfectly by saying, “Police should NEVER, EVER be allowed to respond to provocation or violence in the same way as you or I might if we were provoked. Police have extra-ordinary training, resources, skills, organization and weapons that ordinary citizens do not. In a functioning society, this extraordinary might must be accompanied by extraordinary responsibility. Police MUST exercise even more restraint and discipline precisely because they are police. They are not allowed to react emotionally and to lash out with their superior force. If they do, they are not fit for their job. If the system that sustains their jobs encourages or allows them to lash out with their superior force, then the system has failed and must be changed.”

It's not enough to demand the police stop murdering suspects, brutalizing protesters, and abusing power. We must demand that ALL police officers (from incoming cadets to longstanding veterans) be psychologically evaluated on a regular basis to ensure they are fit for duty. Anybody with ties to or exhibiting the behavior of white supremacist groups needs to be removed from the police force entirely. And that's just for starters. They need to be held to the highest scrutiny because they can literally kill anyone at any time, whether intentionally or by accident and whether they have just cause or not.

People are dying at the hands of those sworn to protect them. And even if they're not your children, they're somebody's child.

Aborting Abortion?

There’s been a lot of talk about defunding Planned Parenthood lately. It seems like there always is, but it’s certainly in the forefront of public discussion at the moment. Apparently, some enterprising self-appointed vigilantes went undercover to record (and, subsequently, strategically edit) incriminating footage of Planned Parenthood. Regardless of the content of evidence and whether or not it’s authentic, here’s something they (and you) should consider: If you want to prevent people from having abortions, shutting down Planned Parenthood is a completely backwards and self-defeating way to go about it.

The vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is provide birth control and other preventative measures to cut down on unwanted pregnancies (and thus cut down on abortions). For crying out loud, that’s what the words “planned parenthood” mean. If you eliminate the resources provided by Planned Parenthood from people with limited means, unwanted pregnancies will rise and, proportionally, the number of abortions will skyrocket (as will the number of dangerous unlicensed “back-alley” abortions). To look at the even bigger picture, an increase in unwanted pregnancies means poverty will also go up, as will welfare, crime, unemployment, child abuse/neglect, and countless other social ills. You want that?

Another thing that perplexes me about such vocal opponents of abortion is how almost none of them back their beliefs up with action. The next time somebody spouts off about how evil abortion is and how it must be stopped at all costs, ask them how many children they’ve adopted (or even fostered). Ask them how much time they’ve spent volunteering at crisis pregnancy centers or shelters for unwed mothers (There’s a list of them state-to-state here). Ask them what they’ve done to help victims of rape or incest. Ask them what they’re doing to educate people (especially teenagers) about birth control. From my experience, most of them seem to find it perfectly adequate to say “I pray for them.” Gee, thanks. How very noble and self-sacrificing of you. Pray in one hand and piss in the other and see which fills up faster.

If you’d rather curse the dark than light a candle, that’s your prerogative. If you wanna complain about pollution without even bothering to pick up the litter in your own neighborhood, you have that right. However, you don’t get to act all righteous and superior when all you’re doing is bitching. You also don’t get to say you care about the unborn or that you care about single mothers or that you care about orphaned children because you don’t. You just hate abortion. Hate never helps.