There is certainly a lot to analyze with the film.
Baudrillard once wrote that "[the Santa Monica Pier] at dawn, is one of the most insignificant shorelines in the world, just a place to go fishing. The Western World ends on a shore devoid of signification, like a journey that loses all meaning when it reaches its end. The immense metropolis of Los Angeles peters out here in the sea like a desert, with all the nonchalance of a desert."
In the earliest moments of the film, we see Neil stare outside his balcony, a scene saturated in blue tones to denote a feeling of emptiness or isolation. In a sense, Mann may be implying that Neil is staring at nothing—the end of the American Frontier, where there is nothing of meaning or purpose. Neil lives in a postmodern home with minimalist furniture. In the postmodern landscape, the object serves as a reflection of the subject; Neil's home—symbolically mirroring his inner state—is empty, "suggesting the emotional bankruptcy of bourgeois life in the post-industrial moment" (Christopher Sharrett, 2007).
Similarly, Vincent's home has nothing that attaches him, save for a portable television. Vincent's police station extends this postmodern architecture, with an office that is more reminiscent of a prison with its "concrete and grey slabs" (Craig Ashley Russell, 2015) than any conventional office.
But you have there the myth of the essential white America. All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic,' and a killer. It has never yet melted.
-D.H. Lawrence on James Fenimore Cooper's Deerslayer
"At the end, both Neil and Vincent are alone, less, I think, to showcase the “final showdown” to which the drama has been moving than to emphasise their alienation from domesticity and forms of male organisation alike" (Sharrett, 2007).
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9366)
2 years ago
Neil's viewpoint could also be about him setting himself apart from humanity entirely. Down below him and beyond him are the human beings, he's this aloof figure up on the hill.
I've long felt that Neil's rejection of human connection is weirdly what does him in. He's succeeding in his escape attempt up until he rejects his true connection for his revenge.
Vincent's home is the opposite. It isn't the things that connect him to the home, it's the people. His step-daughter is so, so important to him. He does love his wife, even if he is driven away by his job. Vincent tries to have connections, even if he fails, but I think his making an effort is what makes him more of a hero.
reply
share
Fandango (534)
2 years ago
Neil's viewpoint could also be about him setting himself apart from humanity entirely. Down below him and beyond him are the human beings, he's this aloof figure up on the hill.
This is actually an excellent point that I haven't considered or heard before.
I've long felt that Neil's rejection of human connection is weirdly what does him in. He's succeeding in his escape attempt up until he rejects his true connection for his revenge.
I wonder if part of the compassion we ultimately feel for Neil at the climax is because at the end of the day, he
does still have a code of honor. On an objective level, he is of course a criminal. We see him rob and kill. On the other hand, however, we see that Waingro is unhinged, unprincipled, and has no lingering note of humanity. He is difficult to side with precisely because he is a black and white villain. An interesting detail is that when Neil is about to kill someone or take on a heist, he is wearing a black suit. When he is going about business and talking, he is seen wearing a gray suit. I think this is to make the distinction that Neil is in fact a gray character and must be observed and analyzed through that lens.
Vincent's home is the opposite. It isn't the things that connect him to the home, it's the people. His step-daughter is so, so important to him. He does love his wife, even if he is driven away by his job. Vincent tries to have connections, even if he fails, but I think his making an effort is what makes him more of a hero.
I agree that there can be some merit to this idea, but I never got the complete sense that Vincent was truly comfortable in his wife's home. The connections felt rather cold and superficial. Even the relationship with his step-daughter seemed off-kilter. His affinity for her seemed like it was more out of pity that her biological father was absent than any true bond.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9366)
2 years ago
I like your idea, too, that Neil is looking at nothing. At the beginning of the film he is almost nihilistic in his philosophy - no attachments.
I'm 100% with you on Neil's code of honour making him sympathetic - certainly moreso than Waingro. I do think the movie is about connections - Vincent and Neil for one, but there are dozens - and just how people relate to one another. It's almost a slice-of-life drama pretending to be an action movie.
So, for me, a lot of Neil's relatability comes from his connection with Eady. He starts to become more human. At the start, he's almost a walking Code of Honour, a philosophy become animate. He starts to gain affection and connection. His final resolution to walk away dooms him.
At the end of the movie, Hanna is prepared to remain at the hospital until his ex tells him to go. She comes to understand that his job is necessary, just as Vincent understands he shouldn't always go on the hunt; sometimes he should be at the hospital.
As to his connections, yeah, his relationship with Justine isn't going well from frame one. (Well, not quite - we first see them in an erotic moment; not exactly "disconnected"...) But to be fair, we're seeing the tail end of the relationship. I like to think they had a chance, even if Vincent blew it by prioritizing his career.
But I will push on the step-daughter thing. Yes, I think to some extent he might not have forged a connection had her biological father been in the picture, but he stepped up. There are multiple times in the movie where he gives Lauren attention that he doesn't to others. Think about when he and his buddy (I don't remember who he's with) pick Lauren up in the cop car and give her a ride. That's Vincent - almost out of character - stopping his work day to help her. He could call Justine, but he doesn't. In a choice between his needs and her needs, he chooses her, and that says a lot to me.
reply
share
Fandango (534)
2 years ago
I will concede that Vincent does, at least in one shown instance, attempt to prioritize Lauren over his job, but I am not so certain he is truly trying to connect with his domestic life in any meaningful manner. But I also believe this is the point that Mann is trying to make. The world that Vincent and Neil inhabit is "hard." The scene where Neil's team attempts to kill Waingro in the diner is contrasted with the scene where Vincent's team is violent toward Van Zandt's informant.
All of the men in this film are disconnected from the emotionally-driven world that their significant others inhabit. In fact, every single female character that is shown in the film suffers a negative fate. Charlene must let Chris go, Elaine (Michael's wife) and Bosko's (Vincent's partner) wife become widows, Anna (Trejo's wife) is murdered. Even Donald, whose partner was supportive of him and wanted desperately for him to turn his life around turns into a widow after Neil effortlessly convinces him to take on a heist at the final moment.
Mann's male characters are unable to connect with the contemporary world. The "postmodern bullshit" that Vincent goes on a tirade about is essentially the world that has become domesticated. Although Justine accepts Vincent's terms in the end, we understand that she will always remain unhappy and unfulfilled. This is hinted at by showing her taking Diazepine in the mornings.
As for Neil, Michael Mann, in One Heat Minute, mentioned that the reason Neil overrides his cultivated habits (e.g., walking away) is because Eady's introduction into his life "emotionalized" him and dulled his professional habits.
Since Vincent and Neil are meant to be analogs of one another, I believe that Neil would not have found any solace or contentment in his life with her. He, like Vincent, would have been unable to come to terms with domestication.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9366)
2 years ago
I still say there's a lot to Vincent's relationship with his step-daughter. I think he's a guy who sacrifices of himself a lot. Mostly we see that with his commitment to policing, but we also see it with Lauren where he'll drop out of his priorities for her.
Very good insights on the domestic/professional dichotomy presented in Heat. I love that those disconnects are portrayed as tragic. It's bad that Charlene has to let Chris go, bad that the murders and severing of relationships happen. Donald is one of the most tragic characters in the story. Life just dumps on the guy, and he tries to do the right thing and takes hit after hit until he says, "Screw this," and tries something else, and that gets him wasted.
Neil and Vincent are more isolated than the rest. I still think connection, or lack of connection, is one of the biggest themes of the film. In the end, they connect with each other, even if nobody else. Well, Lauren and Eady (kinda), but the big "love story" here is Vince and Neil.
I also think the film portrays Neil's dulled professional habits and heightened emotional world is a good thing. Every time I watch it, I want Neil to make that choice and find out that real happiness and fulfillment is going to come with that deep connection. It's true tragedy.
In the end, adherence to that "discipline" (the heat around the corner) is Neil's tragic flaw.
I do disagree where I think Neil would have found comfort in another life. I think Vincent would, too. He almost says it in the cafe, saying that he can't be where he should be because he has to go out and chase guys like Neil.
Now, maybe by the time we meet Vincent he's too broken, too far gone, but I think that he could have learned something else and made those connections work.
Maybe not. I haven't read the prequel novel yet...
reply
share
Fandango (534)
2 years ago
Thank you. Great points all-around, Ace.
I think it's a testament to a film's scope and inner complexity when such varied and opposing viewpoints can be held and cogently argued.
I value your ability to amicably discuss ideas that you may not necessarily agree with. As Mikhael Veller once said, "the true mark of a man's intelligence is the ability to hold opposing ideas."
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9366)
2 years ago
Thanks! You, as well; I'm enjoying your insights into this film.
I think the film is great for this reason, that it has the depth and complexity for us to see all of these points and counterpoints. It's not contradictory, it's because the movie shows us "real" people and a slice of life along with its gunfights. Mann is conveying truth as much as some point he's making, and so it has more power and meaning than if he just made some propaganda piece or a PSA about how urban sprawl is dehumanizing.
I hope Mikhael Veller is right, because I frequently find my brain filled up with opposing ideas.
reply
share