Following on from last week’s article where we looked at the double bill of Gene Hackman collaborations with Tony Scott, it only felt fair to continue our deep dive into Scott and continue from where we left off, with Crimson Tide and with Denzel Washington. Scott and Washington as collaborators are one of the most underrated film pairings of actor and director that I can think of. I don’t know if it can be said that Scott ever seriously elevated Washington’s performances, but I do think the serious nature and lack of winking that Washington brought to many of these pretty populous elevated B-movie action thrillers had a hand in bettering the quality of them. And trust me when I say that I mean that in no disparaging way, for these are really some of my most watched and most enjoyable features of the past 20 years. Let’s start with their second film together, following Crimson Tide; 2004’s Man on Fire.

Credit

Man on Fire (2004)

Credit

Directed by Scott from Brian Helgeland’s adaptation of A.J Quinnell’s novel of the same name, Man on Fire feels separate from Crimson Tide, and in many ways feels like a signifier for what will come of both Washington and Scott’s 2000’s period in film. Man on Fire really is a mixed bag for me. Where on one hand and for the most part I find it be a tremendously successful film with a deep heart, a compelling revenge kidnapping plot and some all around terrific performances bolstered by one of Washington’s best turns; the film too is edited and directed to such an extent that the compulsive montaging and overuse of grain effects and frantic editing leads one to feel almost nauseated at parts.Scott has commented on the manner in which this was inentional and used to build a visual landscape of what Washington's character viewed the Mexico setting as, however for me it was simply far too much. Scott is indeed known for his montage style of action, however as I have noted in almost all of these mini-reviews and articles some of the time it just is all too much for the viewer. When it comes to major action sequences it’s not too bad, but when it’s just Washington sat talking to someone, it feels almost completely un-nesercery and even a few times unbearable to watch. So why do I still rate it so high personally? As aforementioned Washington is on absolutely top form, solidifying from the off-set the exact sort of character he will be best at portraying within these Scott films, that character being that of a dazed and past it especially skilled individual. However of course the film works far better than it has any right to do due to one single factor, the wickedly smart and blissfully vulnerable performance of Dakota Fanning as the young child that Washington’s Creasy takes under his arm as bodyguard. The film’s main plot persay kicks into gear around 40 minutes into the film, this isn’t something I note due to pace, I only note it as it just highlights exactly how well developed this relationship is delivered to us. We believe their connection and the film soars because of it. It is of course a relentless cliché for the location the film takes place in to be described as another character, however in the case of Mexico City and the surrounding crime world underneath, and frankly, on the surface of it – it’s exactly the right thing to say. The closing credits themselves gives “special thanks to Mexico City. A very special place”. Man on Fire really is a visceral and very watchable film, with some distantly noticeable visual flourishes that do overpower the film to no avail, however the core of Scott and Washington’s talents really do bring this film home in nearly every other department.

Déjà Vu (2006)

Credit

This extremely high concept thriller is quite simply the best version of the ‘time travel to avoid terrorism’ film that we have strangely seen so many of. This is far more watchable and less convoluted than Source Code and far more understandable than Tenet, if less polished. The film follows Washington as an investigative agent looking into a terrorist bombing on a Ferry killing just short of 500 people, with his only lead being the brutalised corpse of the terrorists one previous victim that he killed and dumped prior to blowing the ferry. It is early into the investigation that Washington is taken under the wing of a funny and underused Val Kilmer, who informs him of a radical time travel based surveillance software that may or may not be the answer to finding the killer and for Washington, possibly stopping the bombing entirely and saving the killers previous victim, played with great heart and confusion by Paula Patton. A bizarre sort of romance strikes up between Patton and Washington in this film, across time and across plains. On paper it doesn’t really work but in the hands of Washington and Patton, two actors who I’ve never particularly noted for their romantic playing capabilities, the romance is plausible and one that we ultimately invest in. Jim Caviezel is twisted and scarily pragmatic about his nefarious deeds which makes him an all the more scary foe. Our two scriptwriters, Terry Rossio and Bill Marsilli, had issues with final product of the film, feeling that it didn’t emulate the screenplay that they originally wrote. With their main issues lying with the fact that Scott focussed more so on the action than the time travel elements. I’m here to posit that may not have been such a bad thing. Although they claim that Scott’s direction of the script led to multiple plot holes, I personally believe that Scott’s focus on the action saved the movie from becoming an overly indulgent sci-fi farce that eventually breaks under its own weight of convulsion and confusion. Scott’s direction is effective and tragic when presenting the initial Ferry accident, but then completely riveting and thrilling as he goes on to depict the later action fuelled revisitations of the attack. Scott has made a pulpy action thriller with an always charming Washington at lead – that sentence could describe all four of these films, but here I feel it highlights the elevation of material that these two combined did offer.

The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009)

Credit

Scott reunited with Brian Helgeland, screenwriter of Man on Fire, to adapt another pulp novel previously adapted for a successful film, this time around they chose to tackle The Taking of Pelham 123, the story of a train hijacking with Washington in the position of Walter Garber, a train dispatcher who becomes the one person that our brutal hijacker will talk to. For as much as Pelham is still a thriller that stands above a fair few in the grand scheme of things, it is indeed the worst of our four films here today. Conversations about the quality of the film in comparison to the original aside, Pelham just seems to be going a little bit by the numbers in a way that even Scott’s most conventional movies don’t feel to. It’s not a messy film, as a matter of fact it’s just as tightly constructed as any other Scott film, it just feels looser. Perhaps it’s the amount of time we spend in Man on Fire compared to this, that allows for each of the subplots to come together more concisely and more cohesively. Whereas arguably the strong core of each of these four films is arguably the relationship of our two chief figures, in this case Washington and John Travolta’s hijacker, this time around it feels like the weakest pairing has occurred. Let’s get to Travolta in all of this. A choice was clearly made to make this film more distinctly different from the original, by making the hijacker be wackier, looser and more trigger happy – however Travolta frankly just can’t pull it off. There are frequent moments where it works, but they are a little bit too sparring for the film to be a major success. James Gandolfini as our mayor is a standout, as he always is, but again it overall just falls a little flat and that really is saying something, afterall the film is a very high octane piece. But still a lesser Scott film is a far better action film than half of what we get nowadays.

Unstoppable (2010)

Credit

The final pairing of Scott and Washington, was regrettably Scott’s final film ever, and when it comes to directorial send-off’s, it’s certainly one of the best. This perfectly crafted exceptional action-thriller was a little bit dismissed I feel on arrival, due to the simple stupid fact that it was another Scott/Washington film based around runaway/hijacked train. As I have commented on multiple times on this blog when it comes to masterpiece films with a one-line premise, the film strives in its simplicity. Washington and Chris Pine are our brilliant two leads who man the controls as this diabolical missile of a locomotive hurdles at uncontrollable speeds towards a series of ever-increasingly dangerous set-ups. The film really does solidify the immense talent of both Scott and Washington on their own, and as a perfect pairing of actor and director matched brilliantly. For Scott it only further cements the clear ability he has to maintain a thriller for its entire running time, without once dreaming of letting us go. The film really does just move at an extreme pace with us never once pausing to realise the immense adrenaline we have surging through us. Unstoppable is so much more than Scott’s last film, it’s one of his undoubted best. As for Washington, it’s only further proof of a star being able to not only hold the screen on his own, but also have incredible and fundamentally believable realistic chemistry with his co-stars as well. Some of my favourite parts of the film are in actuality the small dialogue exchanges between Washington and Pine, never mind the moments of extreme action. It’s a searing, relentless ride that was the perfect capper to the career of an iconic director and a collaboration with an actor that hopefully will not remain underrated for too much longer.

-

Scott’s career was a truly tremendous one cut unfortunately short by tragedy, but what we do have undoubtedly is a crop of relentlessly re-watchable films that solidify the director as one of the finest action filmmakers of the past 50 years. No sample of his films highlight this better than the crop he made with Washington. As the title reads; a very underrated film pairing, indeed.

-        -  Thomas Carruthers