Entry 3: RE: "The Grey" - Conceptual Canines

Posted by: Bradley Redder

Forgive the dry meandering, but I had to wake up very very early for a dentist's appointment this morning, and got precious little sleep. On top of that, the odd sensation of tartarless teeth has been a constant source of distraction, so I may not have all of my wits about me at the moment.

Great point about societal individualism influencing our film heroes, but I think it almost negates your earlier argument that The Grey's lapses in plausibility give it nothing cool, no visceral feeling. Now, I understand that this is all subjective and difficult to argue, but I'm going to do it anyway, given that I'm in the position to defend the film.

There have certainly been a lot of "extraordinary man in extraordinary situation" movies lately, many of them quite literally featuring extraordinary men (and a few women) with a dozen superhero movies being released every year. The Grey does not match that description, instead it features an "ordinary man in an extraordinary situation," an often much more interesting, though for some reason much less popular approach to heroism. An ordinary man in over his head essentially produces an underdog which, unless he happens to be obnoxious or abrasive or some other form of asshole, I think we are inherently drawn into caring about/rooting for.

Where I think most movies would simply settle for the basic underdog scenario, I think The Grey builds on it by fleshing out its characters, which only makes that underdog quality seem more intense, giving us a reason to want these guys to make it other than that they probably won't. In our reviews we both mentioned our impression of this film going into it, that it looked like a standard blood-thirsty action premise with wolves instead of guys with guns, but right from the start it sets itself apart from that with a five-minute prologue that sets up Neeson's broken, regretful, lost character. And then it surrounds him with ridiculously normal guys who carry on meaningless conversations, like normal guys do.

This is really starting to meander, so I'll just get to it. You say it's not visceral, but I say all of these things make it that much more visceral, even more so than a beast ripping your organs out is already. I think its absurd level of normalcy only contributes to the adrenaline rush it sometimes breaks out into. Even the moments in which the wolves attack  are ordinary... sitting by a fire talking about nothing special, taking a leak... these make it that much more immediate, because it's relatable. I bullshit around a fire; I piss outside, and seeing a giant wolf savagely ripping out a man's entrails while he does these things that I do all the time, rather than at the end of a long parkour chase (which certainly has its merits... make no mistake about it), makes The Grey that much more effective. How can you say you feel nothing for these poor guys, out there all alone, being hunted by wolves? Have you no heart?

Entry 2: RE: "The Grey" - Biting Back

Posted by: Thomas Kaminski

I'm sorry about my apparent charlatanry regarding my knowledge of natural wolf behavior. What I did was generalize the behaviors of many wolves and their prey (like these) to the interactions between wolves and humans.

The thing is the article you referenced was an interview with a researcher who worked in Yellow Stone, the national park which is famous for (among many reasons, obviously) its Wolf reintroduction program. Humans had actually killed all the wolves in Yellow Stone off in the early 1900's. But then their prey started overpopulating, and the ecosystem got thrown out of whack. So we put them back in. Now these wolves, like most wolves that are around civilization, wouldn't attack us- I assumed it was because they know better. However I figured that in the middle of Bumblefuck, Alaska, they may be more likely to treat humans as they would any old Bison. 

I agree with you that complete plausibility is not necessary or even desirable in a story. It is just that I like it when such deviations, even in the realm of fantasy, exist to expand upon some sort of central theme- or at least, be really cool. I didn't think this movie was that cool. I just didn't feel anything visceral when watching it. But that is just me. I can't really argue feelings.

I like your idea about the movie redefining manliness, which didn't cross my mind at all really. But it does make sense. I look at his admission of vulnerability from a different framework. 

We live in a radically individualistic society, so many of our movies tend to be about one person who has the world on their shoulders- or people who in some way excel beyond everyone else. And a common attribute these people possess is an invulnerability to fear or death. Neeson has neither. 

They did a study once (forgive me, I read about this in a psychology textbook years ago and don't feel like finding the reference)- they went through thousands of articles in Japanese and American newspapers. And what they found was that anytime there was a crime, the ways in which the papers described the stories were measurably different. In Japan the stories tended to focus much more upon the perpetrators' life stories, their childhood, their schools, their socioeconomic status, etc...whereas in America they found that the articles tended to focus on the details of the crime, the immediate circumstances, and immediate implications. And this data is indicative of qualitative differences in the ways in which people think about and approach the world. Namely, in the West we are more likely to place huge emphasis on the individual, the self-made man, and look at progress and achievements as purely individual accomplishments. And this attitude leads to the production of cinema with invulnerable heroes, however unrealistic or unrelatable they may be. It may seem like a stretch, but I do believe that many films about superheroes and invulnerable men are in fact a type of propaganda. It's all about subtext, that is all. For these reasons I commend the movie for producing a character like this. He is not completely absent from films, but the trend down the other road is much more prevalent. 

Entry 1: RE: "The Grey" - "Wolves are Wimps"

Posted by: Bradley Redder

Well, after a little research inspired by some comments in your review I have discovered that you're claims about wolves are wrong. It is true that wolves would not act in real life as they do in this film, but rather than savagely attack all of the men at once and kill them, they are much more likely to run away at the sight of a human, especially several standing next to a fire with weapons in hand. Much of Neeson's character's expertise on wolves is actually entirely made-up as well, but where some may see this as a bad thing, I honestly don't care.

I'm not usually one to attack a film's verisimilitude, or its faith to source material, two things that come into play with The Grey, as it is also an adaptation of a short story. I'm all for dramatic license and, in the case of adaptations especially, I actually prefer it. In the case of fabricating a new reality, or certain aspects of it, as long as it is done with any amount of care, I'm all for it. It's essentially like a sci-fi premise. If the wolves just cowered away from Neeson and co. throughout the film, how boring would that be? Carnahan establishes that Neeson knows wolves, and Neeson gives us the rundown on these wolves, and that's enough for me... for all intents and purposes, they're real. And the film is all the better because of it, for it rewards anyone willing to go along with its premise, however unrealistic it might be.

As for the wolves being allegorical in some way, I don't see it either, though I also don't see it as just a bunch of dudes fighting wolves. In addition to setting the film up as a sort of blind-siding character study , which I'll discuss in a later post, I think it speaks to man's reaction to and impulse in a dangerous situation. I say The Grey redefines the Hollywood notion of manliness, because in this film fear and recognition of danger seem to be the hallmark of a real man, a capable hero. Neeson freely admits that he is terrified, "scared shitless" when addressing Diaz's (Frank Grillo) false-bravado, which not only makes him feel more heroic for being able to handle himself throughout the film, but also resets the audience's expectation and makes the experience that much more perilously exciting... heroes don't admit to being scared, so if he does, then who knows what we're about to see? It's just one more thing that I feel sets this apart from a typical action thriller.

Also, your opening line is funny... On the blu-ray commentary, Joe Carnahan says that he feels the plane crash is the best crash sequence ever filmed. While I'm inclined to see this as cocky and automatically disagree, I actually can't think of a better one off the top of my head. Thoughts?

Brad's Take: The Grey - ***1/2

Upon seeing the trailers for The Grey, I immediately classified it as the latest seemingly annual January/February Liam Neeson revenge/renegade thriller. Not that that would necessarily have been a bad thing, but right from the start, The Grey establishes itself as something much more than simple revenge thriller.

With The Grey, writer/director Joe Carnahan leaves behind his recent sloppy action spectacles, the abysmal Smokin' Aces, and what can only be described as an exercise in cinematic sadism, which he dared to call A-Team, and gets back to what made him worth paying attention to in the first place: gritty, tension-fueled, character-based thriller. The Grey follows a group of outcasts, formerly working in the arctic, as they try to stave off freezing, hunger, broken spirits, and a pack of giant, man-eating wolves after  their plane goes down in the middle of nowhere with no hope of rescue.

Neeson leads an amazing cast of character actors as a broken man who was hired to pick off wolves with a sniper rifle. In another film, or perhaps with another actor, this would seem like a cheap character, more of a plot device than a fleshed-out human, but Carnahan and a very grizzled Neeson go to great lengths to make him not only believable, but complex and sympathetic as well. And for good reason too, for the film really comes down to him, in more ways than one, and caring about his many struggles is made as much a priority as providing entertainment via slick wolf attacks.

Now that's not to imply that the wolves are handled lightly. They're surprisingly impressive to look at, given that they're not real. Through a combination of CGI and animatronics, Carnahan gives us just enough visually to fear these vicious creatures, but relies more on shadows and sound effects to really instill dread in the audience. Though even more surprising, and more impressive, too, is Carnahan's reserve in exploiting this technical achievement and making a standard survival thriller about man vs. beast. Instead he delivers a much more contemplative film that ultimately establishes itself as a sort of meditation on death and an attempt to redefine Hollywood braun and manliness. Gone, I hope, are the days when dudes shrug off any hardship and sorrow, because in all honesty, The Grey proves that tears and fears are not only much more manly, but also much more interesting.

Tom's Take: The Grey - 2 1/2 Stars

"Liam Neeson, amma let you finish, but Oceanic Flight 815 was the greatest plane crash of all time."

I actually liked this movie more than I thought I would. Based on the few commercials I saw, it seemed like it would just be another Hollywood gore-fest. While it was most certainly not lacking in this department, the violence was not at all gratuitous. This film’s draw was not to be another installment in a series of ever more violent and grotesque films (a trend which seems to be pervading the industry)- I found that refreshing.

I am still trying to figure out if this movie was intended to be allegorical in some way. You could just look at it as a bunch of dudes getting killed by wolves and fighting for their lives. But I think this is unlikely because of the way the wolves behave throughout the film. I don’t want to give any explicit details, but it is clear that these animals do not behave as they would in nature. If they felt threatened by these humans, they could have easily killed all of them early on. And that is, in fact, what they would have done. But instead we see them kill systematically, ritualistically- as though they are playing some sort of game with the humans. As if they are testing those who remain. This could be the case, or it could just be another case of people writing about things they don’t really understand.

So the movie wasn’t devoid of creativity, and it was not masturbatory in violence. However, it still didn’t really surprise me much. There were no things that happened that I really couldn’t expect. But the characters were believable enough, and it was visually appealing. Overall it was worth the 6 bucks for the HD rental.

Guest Blogger - Tom Kaminski

Posted by: Bradley Redder

Unfortunately my fellow blogger, Chad Van Alstin, has an absurdly busy week ahead of him. We both have full-time jobs, and he'll be balancing a few other things for the next couple of days, and decided he would be unable to do this week's movie justice, so we're bringing in a guest... Mr. Tom Kaminski.

I met Tom on the first day I moved into my college dorm, when he drunkenly knocked on my door at 2 a.m. and asked if I wanted to eat some of the pizza he had just ordered. I of course said yes, and at the same time the following night he knocked again and told me I owed him a pizza, so I ordered one and while we waited for it we made fun of a couple of guys fist-fighting on the lawn... We've been friends ever since.

A few facts about Tom:

1. He thinks the moral relativism and social satire in Tremors 3 makes it better than Tremors and Tremors 2 put together.

2. He's seen every SNL movie adaptation at least one-and-a-half times.

3. When he gets depressed he dips his feet in public pools and watches Law & Order reruns on his iPod.

One of those may or may not be true; try and guess which one it is while reading our discussion of The Grey all this week.

This Week's Movie - 5/21-5/27

Posted by: Bradley Redder

The Grey

Directed by Joe Carnahan

Written by Joe Carnahan and Ian Mackenzie Jeffers

Starring Liam Neeson, Dallas Roberts, Frank Grillo, Dermot Mulroney, Joe Anderson, Nonso Anozie, James Badge Dale

Apologies again for waiting so long to announce our discussion piece for the week, but again we couldn't decide between the two major releases, which, like last week's Dark Shadows, we figured nobody really cared about. So this week we've decided that, in the absence of a theatrical release that looks interesting or relevant, we'll try an older release. Given that, we didn't go too old. The Grey was released earlier this year, and just last week on blu-ray, so it is available to rent. Trailer below, discussion all week...