S.W.A.T
Directed by: Clark Johnson
___________________________________
I
never thought I'd live to see the day when thrills in a studio movie
would come from sheer competence. The offhanded glories of a movie like,
say, Walter Hill's Long Riders caught at an early morning
showing at the Chicago Loop's defunct United Artists Theeater, seem
a distant memory. Still, genre work is not dead, and I'm pretty sure
it was a lot more than the fact that I was at a 10am screening, amped-up
and armed with a fistful of Dr. Pepper that made S.W.A.T. such
sweet, larky fun.
Reluctantly looking
over the list of movies I've seen outside of film festivals since the
start of the year, I've found more titles than not of movies I never
care to see even a frame of again. (I have a friend who zones out late
at night when the videogames leave him too fried, rewatching bits and
pieces of whatever couple of movies are in heaviest HBO 1-2-34 rotation;
another reason to keep cable out of the home.) Who's got the miscalibrated
meds, you have to wonder: the executives at the top of the media pyramid,
or audiences who are shocked giddy-senseless when something remarkable
like Finding Nemo finds its way to shore?
There are joyful
moments in even messy and misguided movies; I'm never expecting perfection
even from the best of mobvies. A shaggy-dog shambles like Hollywood
Homicide has its vagrant charm; a neutron bomb like Gigli - when
it goes off, everything goes down but the stars' salary quotes - makes
you wonder if anyone way up top of the industry really knows what movies
once looked like, and what life looks like outside of the Town Car.
A director I interviewed this week told me about a recent insulting
meeting with a studio executive; the director said laughter was the
only proper response, followed by, "Do you think I've never been
insulted before?"
No, he doesn't know;
he only greenlights what he calls "movies" but are in fact
a series of esthetic compromises and strategic guesses that create a
marketable product that serves to sate the maw of the theatrical-overseas-DVD-pay-per-view-cable-basic
cable pipeline. Movies like Hulk are misshapen for other reasons:
Universal "couldn't" preview the picture before audiences
for Ang Lee to measure their reaction because of potential bad,
pseudonymous-signed reviews that wind up on the likes of Ain't It
Cool News. Result: ambitious yet slack movie that could have benefited
from a few extra sets of eyes. (And still, Hulk was victim to
one of the nastier, stupider piratings of the year.)
S.W.A.T. sounds
like a rotten idea from the get-go: a "remake" of a shabby
television series that hardly anyone recalls with any particular affection.
Yet it's the kind of expert, quick romp that's gratifying from the opening
shot, which zooms into and beyond the Hollywood sign with a flotilla
of helicopters, blending the impact of the first few seconds of Star
Wars, Blade Runner and even the apocalyptic ending of Kiyoshi
Kurosawa's little-seen Charisma. Enter Colin Ferrell
in a 'copter, looking like he's digesting a glass of milk. A bank is
being attacked by suicidal if well-financed dumbasses; enter the commando
coppers.
From that first
setpiece, Clark Johnson shows himself not just as a director
to watch, but someone whose movies move. Johnson's television
background, which includes directing episodes of F/X's The Shield
and HBO's The Wire and Boycott, which he also starred in, brings
so much to S.W.A.T. Everything said about the maturity of television
versus what we cavalierly call "contemporary American cinema"
is on screen, plus an uncommon attention to performance. Johnson shoots
in a kinetic fashion that must have driven the accountants mad, working
with a sweet surfeit of coverage, cameras in unexpected places, booming
up and down, rushing forward or back, editing for maximum impact. It's
a focused version of the incoherent energy of John Moore's Behind
Enemy Lines. Johnson knows how to utilize the moving camera, unlike
say, Michael Bay, who pretty consistently swoops laterally, Steadicam-ing
to the left, low and fast. The production design is rich without becoming
distracting, with graceful detailing of almost every frame.
But that is look
and pace. Don't we go to movies to watch people we might recognize do
things we cannot do in our limited lives? In S.W.A.T., the lovingly
cast actors aren't just having fun, they're doing top-notch work without
too much of a wink. Farrell seems the best he's been, truly holding
the screen; when he's paired later with old-school S.W.A.T.-Yoda
Samuel L. Jackson, even Jackson's performance is rich without
becoming risible. Among other team members, LL Cool J impresses;
Olivier Martinez makes a swell pretty-boy antagonist; and Michelle
Rodriguez... The camera loves her. Why don't more casting directors?
What Johnson gets out of her in reaction shots is terrific, underlining
that she is one hardcore screen-stealing goddess. There's a scene where
she enters a room; seeing a three-way testosterone tangle in progress,
she reacts with a slightly skeptical yet still amused raise of the eyebrow.
A simple thing in a construction of many simple yet smart, often elegant
elements.
The script credited
to David Ayer (Training Day) and David McKenna
(American History X) sets rules so that even the most implausible
of turns - a Lear Jet landing on the deco Sixth Avenue Bridge in downtown
Los Angeles? - is worked through in a satisfying way. The action is
exquisitely calibrated, but throughout, Johnson knows that genre is
not junk to be condescended to, it is a series of variations on themes
and figures.
There's always a
line of bull in interviews and press kits about "Y'know, the city
was like another character in our movie" - Martin Brest
made said claim about the drab, darting Gigli - but Johnson,
in his own impatient fashion, is just as gifted at capturing Los Angeles'
grit and glitter as Michael Mann in movies such as Heat.
Dawn, day, night, actual locations, studied interiors, street scenes.
S.W.A.T. talks the talk, and S.W.A.T. walks the walk.
-
by Ray Pride