When watching Martin Scorsese's shock to the senses which is, Bringing Out the Dead, one realises that somewhere along the way the traditional "beginning-middle-end" story structuring has been completely disregarded. It is a sensory experience before it is a film, and it attempts to strike you with its sounds, sights and (imagined) smells before trying to entertain you; which is perfectly fine if you allow yourself to go along with it.
Our story (or should that be "series of events") follows paramedic, Frank Pierce (Nicolas Cage), a Manhattan medic working the graveyard shift in a two man ambulance team. Sleep deprived, Frank wishes to be sent home to sleep, as his burnt-out mind causes him to see ghosts roaming the streets. One ghost that persists in returning is Rosie, a homeless woman he failed to save six months previously. Over the course of three nights, we see him with three different partners, who each bring with them a rush of adrenaline to an already high-strung film. Firstly, there is Larry (John Goodman), who is with Frank when he meets Mary (Patricia Arquette), the daughter of a heart-attack victim whom Frank will later befriend. Frank's second partner is Marcus (Ving Rhames), a Jesus-loving nuisance who enjoys attempting to flirt over the radio with the woman manning the dispatch desk. Lastly, there is Tom (Tom Sizemore), a psychotic paramedic who is excited by the thought of beating drug-addict, Noel (Marc Antony) to death with a baseball bat.
If that synopsis sounds episodic and difficult to digest, it is because it is. At best, one could describe the narrative as being manic-depressive, which is fitting giving the protagonist's state of mind. For long stretches, mostly during the scenes in the ambulance, it rushes and pulses; then it lulls and becomes sluggish. While I imagine that is the desired effect, as Frank and his series of partners must be alert and ready when they are on the job, it is disorientating for the viewer. That is not to suggest that it does not work, or that the absences of form causes the film to drag, it does mean that it is difficult to ease into as a coherent narrative. It is impossible to really care for Frank, or any of the situations in the film, as they go from zero miles-an-hour, to one-hundred and twenty in a millisecond. There is no way to readjust or get comfortable, so the best one can do is to attempt to enjoy the speed for as long as it lasts. It is perhaps most comparable to a roller coaster, which temporarily slows down before it ramps up the speed. It is breathtaking for its duration, but hard to connect to it on an emotional level.
Based on Joe Connelly's novel of the same name, Bringing Out the Dead is adapted for the screen by Paul Schrader, a frequent collaborator of Scorsese's. Before this was released in 1999, their previous collaboration was The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988, and it is surprising to see just how similar the two films are. Bringing Out the Dead, has a lingering motif of guilt and its consequences running throughout, especially given how Frank reacts to the people he cannot save. He allows each person whom he loses to haunt him, and imagines that those he could not save are ghosts. If you had not guessed already, Frank is a metaphor for Jesus, who wears the weight of the world on his shoulders. It is particularly obvious in his scenes with Mary (his Mary Magdalene), an ex-drug addict who falls off the wagon when her father is taken ill. Frank rescues her on several occasions (cleansing her of her seven sins), even going so far as to drag her out of a drug dealers apartment, and as a reward, he is allowed to sleep in her apartment. She absolves him of guilt, which allows him to go back to work with a clear conscience. While this is very interesting, Frank never really comes across as more than a metaphor, and he never comes across like a real human being.
As previously mentioned, the film works best when it is at its fastest, as Martin Scorsese's depiction of New York is quite hellish. Firstly, it is set in the early 90s, during the peak of the AIDS epidemic, which makes for a fairly interesting subtext and allows the action to be crowded with gaunt, dying faces. This lends an authority to the ambulance scenes, as Frank and his partners seem suitably swamped. Secondly, Scorsese allows his production team to get really low-down and dirty when shooting New York. There are no stereotypical shots of The Empire State Building here and Scorsese directs with all the speed and energy of a cocaine addict, not allowing the pace to drop for a second during these scenes.
Unfortunately, the performances are something of a mixed bag, ranging from decent to fairly amateurish. If there is one thing that Nicolas Cage can do as an actor, it is that he can play high-strung characters, which works very well here. Cage has always been somewhat of an anomaly as actor, in the sense that he simply does not seem like a member of the human race. His movements and speech patterns are so eccentric and bizarre that he comes across more like an extra terrestrial life form which simply chose to mimic humans; although it is just that bizarre energy which makes his performance work. Out of Frank's three partners, Cage has a particularly decent chemistry with Ving Rhames as Marcus, who brings a self knowing, broad wit to his performance, which works well in the lighter scenes. Regrettably, Patricia Arquette comes across as a little flat, sounding as if she is reading her lines off cue cards. This is a shame, as I think that most of the time she is a pretty remarkable talent. Although, she is done no favours by the script, which leaves her character a little underwritten.
In conclusion, did I enjoy the film? Absolutely I did. From the moment it began to the moment it ended I was gripped. However, did I think the film was great? Frankly, no, I did not. It is such a moody, grubby piece of work that it keeps you at an arm's length throughout. Its subject matter and execution, while breathtaking and entertaining, are what keep you from truly allowing the film to connect with you. Instead, you are bombarded with images and sounds that eventually the only thing you can connect to is the shallower elements of the film. It is certainly worth a rent, and only becomes more entertaining on a rematch, but it is by no stretch a masterpiece.
7/10
No comments:
Post a Comment