The Deeper Underpinnings of Miami Vice

[mjcmmv]

3 hours ago, Bren10 said:

Continuing on a point from the Out Where The Buses Don't Run thread, I think to say that it was Burnett who killed Hackman and not Crockett is letting Sonny off the hook too easily, as well as removing some of the character's own agency. This would in fact diminish the entire scene and it's significance and meaning to me. And some fans just don't want to accept that their hero would do such a thing. But remember that MV is a noir piece and by nature the protagonists are flawed. Clearly Caitlyn's murder, and by extension the murder of Sonny's unborn child, was the incident that was to send him over the line. The producers/writers intended it to be that until it got muddled by NBC who didn't want Sonny to appear villainous by outright shooting an unarmed Hackman. But this is a point that also needs to be made-just because Sonny crossed the line in the case of Hackman, that does not mean he would go permanently into "Dirty Harry" vigilante mode from now on. In fact, the next time we see him before the explosion he is following procedure and building a case. I would say the Hackman affair was an extreme, one-off situation and actually didn't have much to do with enforcing the law at all as much as personal revenge (when things get personal they get messy..). If justice was Sonny's main concern I think he would've gone after him after he got off death row. But he didn't. It took a personal situation to make Sonny go to such an extreme, but it was an extreme that occurred once and then it was out of his system. It was somewhat akin to the Glantz situation in that once it was done it was done and Sonny Crockett, not Burnett, could live with that even if we the audience can't. I maintain that if there is no explosion and amnesia that Sonny remains a dutiful cop, though an increasingly tired and cynical one.

Well said. A favorite topic of mine!

Sonny was flawed, and I think we should have been allowed to grapple with that instead of being reassured  by showing Hackman with a gun in his hand.  Hackman was the worst of the worst and Sonny couldn't touch him, unless he pulled that trigger. 

[Robbie C.]

22 minutes ago, Bren10 said:

Off the cuff, I'd say killing Hackman was a selfish act that was outside the law, but not altogether evil. I'll try to expand on that, but that's the other problem questlon-does the law determine morality? Just as weed was bad but then the law changed so it isn't bad now, if revenge-killing was actually legal would there be a question of it being evil to engage in it? In regards to Sonny, I don't believe Sonny killing Hackman makes him an evil person. He may be in the wrong lawfully though. If you define evil (as I do) as ultimate selfishness regardless of how it affects others and total lack of empathy, then Sonny Crockett is absolutely not an evil person. He was ready to quit Vice after Hackman' s girlfriend got killed , after all. This may be a contradiction in terms but he is a man who committed a calculated crime of passion. But as you pointed out, he is not in the habit of doing things like that. Or if I want to be jerky and flippant about it, Sonny was just fulfilling the death sentence that should've been carried out by the state anyway.

But is it a selfish act if it contributes to the greater good? Hackman wasn't going to stop killing or robbing. He enjoyed doing both, and didn't care how it impacted others. I don't know that your closing statement is either jerky or flippant, but rather goes toward modifying your original statement. If Hackman had only harmed Sonny in some way, and had no intent or capability to harm anyone else, I might agree with the selfish summation. But by making Hackman what he is they pose a question that goes beyond that. Was Sonny selfish, or was he contributing to the greater good and carrying out a sentence that had already been passed and was only set aside due to deceit? Was Sonny selfish, or was he in some way atoning for his past gullibility with Hackman and correcting a wrong he had committed? Or should he have worn the green pastel top instead of the blue when he shot Hackman? Would it have been more stylish had he arrived in the Stinger and not the Scarab? Or (nearer to my heart) would the Bren 10 have been more effective at separating Hackman's consciousness from his physical being than the Smith & Wesson 645?

Sorry, my offbeat sense of humor got the better of me...

[vicegirl85]

9 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

But is it a selfish act if it contributes to the greater good? Hackman wasn't going to stop killing or robbing. He enjoyed doing both, and didn't care how it impacted others.(snipped)

I don't see Sonny's killing of Hackman as a selfish act, and it did contribute to the greater good in the sense you discuss.  But I believe Sonny held an ideal of belief in the rule of law, rather than individuals taking justice into their own hands.  Although time and time again he'd witnessed the legal system fail to achieve justice, after all he was the one who said: 

Quote

“I can’t touch you, I know that, too many obstacles, too many politics. But you’re dirty, Ace, and I’m patient.” 

When he acted outside of the system to permanently stop Hackman, I believe there was a small piece of him that died, too.  He believed he had broken his oath, and violated his code of ethics.  I don't think he regretted the fact that Hackman was dead, or even that he was the agent of that death.  But still, it was a conflict with his identity as an ethical being and a good cop. 

He did sometimes cut ethical corners to square things, but I don't recall him making a conscious decision to kill anyone else on the show.  His kills were shown as self-defense or defense of someone else who was in immediate peril.  So for me, this incident was different, and I believe it was something that stayed with him.

[Bren10]

Lol at the green pastel top! I will say this, once again Sonny did not take the initiative in killing Hackman until after Caitlyn was killed. Not after he got off falsely for killing Frankel, not after Albierro wound up dead etc. No, it had to take something self-centric to push Sonny outside his zone. And he was doing it for himself, Caitlyn, and the baby first, not for the world at large. If that was his concern, well he sure put the world at risk for as long as it took to grow his hair all out and put the dark wardrobe away. That's not really a criticism per se, but I do think he did a selfish thing objectively speaking. He did not and would not go through the legal system to get Hackman, whatever the likelihood of that may have been. He did not practice what he preaches. He committed what he would not condone Tubbs trying to do in the pilot and Calderone's demise, thus it was full circle. If it was for the sake of atonement, or even embarrassment and humiliation, that's still Sonny's problem. And just as it can be argued he's doing the world a favor, in the same breath it can be argued he's killing Hackman to make himself feel better, which is kinda selfish.

I'll put it this way, instead of saying "Wrong" he could've said "This one's for me" and it would have totally fit and nobody would've batted an eye, but it would still be a selfish thing.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Bren10

[vicegirl85]

I agree, if Hackman hadn't killed Caitlin and the unborn baby, Sonny would have waited and tried to get him in the regular way, based on his crimes in the future.  So OK, that was self-centric (I'm not sure that's the same thing as selfish but that's splitting hairs!).  He didn't practice what he preached, and he was trying to make himself feel better, by giving Hackman what he deserved for killing sonny's wife.

The not practicing what he preached was the part that I think caused conflict within himself afterward.

[Bren10]

No they're not the same thing and often it's difficult to discern. Humans are self-centric by nature because we are self-aware and our lives have to radiate from ourselves first. Like if you have kids, you have to take care of yourself first so that you are capable of taking care of them. This is not a selfish thing. Selfishness is usually at the expense of something or someone else.

[Robbie C.]

I think people put too much weight on Sonny's little revenge outburst in the pilot, honestly. Was he saying it because he believed it, or because he wanted to make the bust on his own? Sonny in his early days isn't especially reflective, and one could say his insistence on going his own way was selfish. Eddie's murder effected him, but not for very long. He vanishes from memory by the second part of the pilot, never to return. I just don't think Crockett's the law and justice white knight we might want to envision. There's too many instances of him going his own way for that to really hold up. He chides Stan for wanting to cut corners with Phil, but then will do it on his own without a second thought or any apparent regret. With Hackman, one could almost reach for the avenging angel motif with the presence of the cross and all that. Combined, of course, with Sonny's total lack of expression. He's doing someone's job. No more and maybe no less. If part of him died at that moment as ViceGirl suggests, maybe it was more of a door opening to the Burnett side of his character. Which had to happen if we follow the Noir redemption arc to its full conclusion.

[vicegirl85]

I have to admit, I tend to put Sonny's apparent amnesia for past events and friends down to the writing and the style common at the time for episodic TV shows. 

Within the "reality" of the show, Sonny is not really a "white knight," and he certainly cuts corners.  But I think he strives for an ideal and although he sometimes takes the stance that the end justifies the means, those means and cut corners involve nonfatal  actions.  Hackman's killing of Caitlin and Sonny's unborn child pushed him over the edge and he deliberately turned his back on that ideal.  Deliberately planning and carrying out his killing of Hackman puts him on Hackman's level in some sense and I don't think that's a way Sonny wants to see himself.  I do think that decision cracked the door (at least) to an increased potential for Burnett to take over.

If the writing had been stronger, and if the show had done more of a job with story arcs,  I think there would be more yes-no answers.  Because of sloppy writing and lack of continuity in many aspects, for me it's possible for people to hold different convictions without one being right and the other wrong.

[Robbie C.]

44 minutes ago, vicegirl85 said:

*snip*

If the writing had been stronger, and if the show had done more of a job with story arcs,  I think there would be more yes-no answers.  Because of sloppy writing and lack of continuity in many aspects, for me it's possible for people to hold different convictions without one being right and the other wrong.

Oh, I agree. No question.

[S.FL84]

Wow yall are doing some D-E-E-P vice analyzing.  I doubt Mann himself ever went this deep.....?

[Bren10]

Mann does in fact go deep. I suggest listening to any one of his many commentary tracks or Q&A presentations to get the gist of him. He is one of my favorite filmmakers.

 

[Bren10]

Also, the Amnesia angle was a convenient out for both the writers and the audience. It makes him more sympathetic and when he gets better he can stop being bad. The alternative is to have Sonny consciously and soberly turn to the other side which people would have a serious problem with. So it's not lazy writing so much as safe writing.

[Bren10]

Getting back to C&T's possible vigilante tendencies and slip-ups, they were both sorely tested in Over The Line and they passed. And that was pretty late in the game when they should be pretty disillusioned. So my faith in Sonny remaining dutiful, if somewhat resentful, is affirmed. 

[Robbie C.]

1 hour ago, Bren10 said:

Mann does in fact go deep. I suggest listening to any one of his many commentary tracks or Q&A presentations to get the gist of him. He is one of my favorite filmmakers.

 

Most good filmmakers and writers do. One of the things NCIS LA likes to do is spin into the cost of undercover work on a rather regular basis. It’s where Vice could have gone had it been written in a stronger way. 

[mjcmmv]

1 hour ago, Bren10 said:

Mann does in fact go deep. I suggest listening to any one of his many commentary tracks or Q&A presentations to get the gist of him. He is one of my favorite filmmakers.

 

My favorite, too! I especially love his camera work.

Like the scene with Sonny on the court house steps in Hit List. The camera rotates around Sonny making it look as if he's spinning slowly-as I'm sure he was emotionally, considering the impending divorce. Mann used that same technique in his other movies. "Heat" comes to mind. 

[Bren10]

That is nice of you to say, Robbie. I was actually half-baiting you to jump in on Mann for his "weak characterisation" so we might start fencing again. 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Bren10

[Robbie C.]

2 hours ago, Bren10 said:

That is nice of you to say, Robbie. I was actually half-baiting you to jump in on Mann for his "weak characterisation" so we might start fencing again. 

I still do think his characterization is weak when compared to Eastwood’s , for example, but that’s because they have different strengths. Mann’s is mostly visual, while Eastwood almost does character studies. They’re both outstanding with music. I know most actors really enjoy working with Eastwood, and they must not dislike Mann because you don’t hear much about it. And they both like having deep things going on in their movies. 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Robbie C.

[Bren10]

Mann is very much a contemporary-minded and "in the now" auteur director. He likes the slice-of-life style of storytelling and each of his films has progressively gone in that direction to varying degrees. Therefore his character exposition is atypical. It comes in bits and pieces instead of the standard and trite long-winded monologues most filmmakers use. And he is largely dependent on his characters' current actions to inform who they are and have been, as well as other characters' commentary upon them. Once again, he trusts to the audience to do some of the work. While it's an unconventional way of doing things, I don't consider it weaker than the norm,  just different, which I like. My understanding is that his actors like working with him because he allows their input into their characters' backstories and motivations and he encourages and even demands immersion into research for an actor. The only possible negatives I've heard about him come from crew, not actors, in regards to his perfectionist tendencies and possibly dangerous risks he takes for the sake of realism.

I love Eastwood as well and he has made great films but imo he sometimes suffers from a heavy-handedness ala Spielberg (though not that bad!) which I simply don't go for. Not to mention his own conservative bent which can be a turn-off. It's understandable why actors would like working with him being that he is an actor himself and he has a unique understanding of what they go through. One of his quirks apparently is that he never calls "action" because it produces unnecessary anxiety and  an adrenaline  rush that is not always appropriate and can break the mood.

[Glades]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Bren10:

Mann is very much a contemporary-minded and "in the now" auteur director. He likes the slice-of-life style of storytelling and each of his films has progressively gone in that direction to varying degrees. Therefore his character exposition is atypical. It comes in bits and pieces instead of the standard and trite long-winded monologues most filmmakers use. And he is largely dependent on his characters' current actions to inform who they are and have been, as well as other characters' commentary upon them. Once again, he trusts to the audience to do some of the work.

I've been thinking about how "Miami Vice" works. And so I came to the conclusion that a season of Vice for me is like a painting. Every single episode of this season contributes a piece to the creation of the painting. Until the picture is almost complete. But never totally, there are still free parts of the painting.
I think this goes very well with how Bren 10 describe Michael Mann's style as a director. Even though Mann never officially directed an episode with Vice...
I hope, it is understandable what I try to say ...

 

[Robbie C.]

I get that you like Mann. It’s all good. But the danger of leaving things up to the audience also tends to mean you leave something up to the actors as well. That’s not always a positive. It all depends on how much ownership the actor takes of the character and how many of the gaps they choose to fill. Compare Crockett and Tubbs. Eastwood is also very much a slice of life storyteller. But his characters are complete. As a writer I don’t think Mann’s are unless an actor in essence finishes them. If the actor chooses not to, we get a sense of something hollow. Like how DJ really let Crockett slide while PMT kept at Tubbs to the end and EJO totally owned Castillo. 

Edited June 26, 2019 by Robbie C.

[Robbie C.]

Seems a shame to just let this thread die out.

I think one of the often-missed elements of Vice was its social commentary. Many of the episodes took, for the '80s, some pretty strong stands on issues not often seen on TV at the time. Perhaps the most powerful is God's Work, an episode I don't think gets near enough credit for what it managed to do. Even "Amen, Send Money" was taking shots at the basically venal nature of the booming televangelist scene at the time. That was a big no-no to mention back then, but Vice held it right up there. And "Child's Play" showed the impact on law enforcement of gangs using kids to do their dirty work for them (nice element of foreshadowing, having the kid come to Miami from Chicago). In a way it's a shame Vice was so "shiny." The glare blinds people to what was going on under the surface.

[mjcmmv]

1 hour ago, Robbie C. said:

Seems a shame to just let this thread die out.

I think one of the often-missed elements of Vice was its social commentary. Many of the episodes took, for the '80s, some pretty strong stands on issues not often seen on TV at the time. Perhaps the most powerful is God's Work, an episode I don't think gets near enough credit for what it managed to do. Even "Amen, Send Money" was taking shots at the basically venal nature of the booming televangelist scene at the time. That was a big no-no to mention back then, but Vice held it right up there. And "Child's Play" showed the impact on law enforcement of gangs using kids to do their dirty work for them (nice element of foreshadowing, having the kid come to Miami from Chicago). In a way it's a shame Vice was so "shiny." The glare blinds people to what was going on under the surface.

Good commentary! I remember being shocked at some of the MV themes. You're right. No other show came close to showcasing the issues plaguing our society back then. The glitz of MV reflected the glitz of the '80's. That was the part that drew the audience in. Then, whamo! The writers hit you with stories that made your hair curl!  Too Much, Too Late comes to mind. We didn't get to see that episode until the show went into syndication. I guess having a mother sell her daughter to a dealer for drugs was a bit over the top! 

[Bren10]

From Chicago to Miami-that's funny because the same could be said of Michael Mann himself. If one takes a cynical slant, you could say that hitting those hot-button topics was the show's way of staying current and maintaining its "street cred" if you will. One of the problems the show created for itself by being such a hit was that its success was based so much on being cool, hip , and in-touch with what was going on. But that is only ever a temporary state and a way has to be found to perpetuate it, which may not be possible because a show is only new once.

[Robbie C.]

9 minutes ago, Bren10 said:

From Chicago to Miami-that's funny because the same could be said of Michael Mann himself. If one takes a cynical slant, you could say that hitting those hot-button topics was the show's way of staying current and maintaining its "street cred" if you will. One of the problems the show created for itself by being such a hit was that its success was based so much on being cool, hip , and in-touch with what was going on. But that is only ever a temporary state and a way has to be found to perpetuate it, which may not be possible because a show is only new once.

I think the problem came on the visual side, not in the plotting. They stayed pretty cutting edge as far as that went all the way through. But it was sadly lost in the glitter and sunglasses. Don't forget, they had some edgy pieces as early as the first season. It wasn't new. It just got missed in the cinematics of the piece.

[Bren10]

I think the show still looked unique in '89 compared to what else was on. Miami just looks a certain way on film that nowhere else looks.