Inside Man (2006)
Directed by: Spike
Lee.
Written by: Russell
Gerwitz.
Starring: Denzel Washington
(Detective Keith Frazier), Clive Owen (Dalton Russell), Jodie Foster (Madeleine
White), Christopher Plummer (Arthur Case), Willem Dafoe (Captain John Darius),
Chiwetel Ejiofor (Detective Bill Mitchell), Carlos Andrés Gómez (Steve), Kim
Director (Stevie), James Ransone (Steve-O), Bernie Rachelle (Chaim), Ken Leung
(Wing), Gerry Vichi (Howard Kurtz), Waris Ahluwalia (Vikram Walia), Peter
Frechette (Peter Hammond), Amir Ali Said (Brian Robinson), Ed Onipede Blunt
(Ray Robinson), Marcia Jean Kurtz (Miriam Douglas), Cassandra Freeman (Sylvia),
Peter Gerety (Captain Coughlin), Victor Colicchio (Sergeant Collins), Jason
Manuel Olazabal (ESU Officer Hernandez), Al Palagonia (Kevin), Florina Petcu
(Ilina), Peter Kybart (Mayor of New York City).
I
remember sitting in a theater in 2006 and seeing a preview for the new Denzel
Washington movie Inside Man – which looked to be a neat little thriller – the
type of which Washington can churn out without breaking a sweat, but is
normally of a higher quality than most simply because he’s Denzel, and he
elevates everything. And then, in the final moments of the trailer, when the
credits flash by quickly, I noticed it said “Directed by Spike Lee”. They
didn’t make that part of the advertising campaign – and there was probably a
reason for that – Summer of Sam, Bamboozled, 25th Hour and She Hate
Me had been his last few films, and none of them had made a lot of money – and
other than 25th Hour, they weren’t really critical hits either. It
was clear the marketing department thought Lee may be a detriment to the
campaign – or at the very least, wasn’t a selling point. I think part of that
has led to Inside Man being underrated through the years – looked at as little
more than Lee taking a studio paycheque to churn out a genre film – so while
the reviews were mainly good, and the box office was far and away the best of
Lee’s career- it’s still looked at as minor Spike Lee. I thought the film was
better than it was given credit for back in 2006 – and still think so today.
Watching it again, so close to the films he was making before – that were angry
about capitalism, and the treatment of black bodies like commodities – I see
the connections in Inside Man – even if it is, on the surface, a bank heist
film. Lee found a way to make his points, but wrap it in a package audiences
felt more comfortable with. Whether that message sunk in, I don’t know, but I
admire the hell out of Lee for smuggling it in – and still think Inside Man is
the one of the best examples ever of an auteur filmmaker taking a studio
paycheque, and making their own film buried in genre trappings.
In the
film, Denzel stars as Detective Keith Frazier, a NYPD cop who is currently
sidelined – put on desk duty because a criminal has accused of stealing
$140,000 from him (which, of course, Frazier denies). He gets his chance to get
back in the game though when a hostage situation develops at a Manhattan bank –
and the regular hostage negotiator is out. From the start, something doesn’t
sit right with Frazier about this situations – the criminals inside seem too
smart and organized to be making the demands they are making. He thinks all
they are doing is buying time. Things get more complicated when he is
approached by Madeleine White (Jodie Foster), a fixer who works for the wealthy
in New York, who has been hired by the bank’s owner, Arthur Case (Christopher
Plummer) – because he has his personal safety deposit box in that location, and
he wants to make sure the contents of which are either recovered, or destroyed.
We do see inside the bank – the robbery is being led by Dalton Russell (Clive
Owen) who speaks directly to the camera, and we sometimes flash to interviews
with people after the robbery has concluded – which shows the confusion about
who was actually doing the robbery as it played out.
As a
nifty genre film, Inside Man works remarkably well. Lee has always been a
talented craftsman, and here he seems to instinctively know that a film like
this needs to move at crackerjack speed, and handles that well. Lee can
sometimes give himself over to offshoots and tirades in his films – that can be
interesting, but also drag the films down a little, and pad the runtime – but
he doesn’t much do that here. He does allow himself a little leeway – the
conversation with the young, African American kid playing a video game called
“Gangsta” or the way a Sikh hostage is treated when he is released – because
he’s wearing a turban (that five years after 9/11 people still couldn’t tell
the difference between Sikhs and Muslims is amazing – and they still cannot
today, although, of course, they still hate them). But Lee doesn’t dwell here –
he makes his point, and moves on quickly. He doesn’t let the pacing flag.
The last
act of the movie – the part that plays out after the robbery is over – is
perhaps the most interesting to me. It’s still a genre film – as Frazier is
interviewing everyone to try and figure out what happened – but it’s packed
with subtext that makes it a little deeper, a little more fascinating. Frazier
is a black cop – so is his partner (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor) – and he knows
how he is perceived, especially as the investigation brings him into contact
with people in Madeline’s world – people who are open minded and liberal, until
the black guy pushes their buttons a little. The final act of the film asks the
same basic question that Lee had been asking basically since Girl 6 a decade
earlier – what exactly are you willing to do for money? At what price will you
sell your soul?
The film
works as a straight ahead thriller. Washington, Owen, Foster, Plummer and the
supporting cast (who is filled with actors overqualified for their roles, like
Ejiofor or Willem Dafoe) all do their jobs, and do it well. The robbery is, of
course, more than a little unbelievable, but we kind of expect that in these
sorts of films, and Lee handles it better than most. The film is something that
Lee hadn’t really made before – or since for that matter: an audience pleaser.
But there’s more here than that, and it elevates the whole movie to a level
that most studio genre films like it. For example, answer me this question: For
all the talk about the $140,000 Frazier was accused of stealing, for all the
denials he issues throughout the film, does the movie ever, explicitly prove he
didn’t take it? And what is he going to do with what he finds in his pocket at
the end? And what does that say about him – and us in the audience watching
him?
No comments:
Post a Comment