“Bound” (1996, Directed by The Wachowski Brothers)
(Again we come to a movie whose subject matter is not for everyone. You have been advised, and you read on at your own peril)
Before the Wachowski Brothers rose to international acclaim for creating one of the definitive science fiction movies of all time, they slammed together a little $4 million movie called “Bound,” ostensibly in order to prove they were capable directors. What they created is, in my opinion, the mecca of commercially minded, independent cinema. They chose a story they could tell with a small cast, in very few highly controllable locations, and as a result the measly sum they spent producing the picture is completely irrelevant. “Bound” never needs another cent, the movie is a complete victory on its own terms.
“Bound” is first and foremost a neo-Hitchcock thriller. It centers around Corky, a recently released female ex-convict who has moved into a barren apartment in order to fix its plumbing. She quickly discovers that she has been placed within a social circle that ex-convicts frequent, and by no coincidence is living next door to a mid-level mob boss named Caesar. Caesar has a live-in girlfriend named Violet, and within minutes of the film’s opening credits, Corky and Violet are romantically involved. Their relationship constitutes about the first twenty minutes of the movie, before a hefty sum of recently recovered mafia cash comes into play. It is at this point we learn that Corky did time for being a thief, and Violet is having second thoughts about her relationship with Caesar.
What? Oh come on, I didn’t use one of the good towels!
I hesitated to put “Bound” on this list for a long time, because it deals with sexuality in a way I don’t particularly enjoy. That Corky and Violet are lesbians isn’t really a problem for me, but the casual sex ethics that the film espouses are contrary to my nature. I have no problem liking a movie I disagree with, but I reserve the right to deny it entrance to the hallowed halls of my esteem. Why, then, does “Bound” get away with it? Two reasons. First of all, because literally every other thing about the movie is that good. Secondly, noir. “Bound” is a noir, and by definition one of that genre’s most defining characteristics is unsympathetic protagonists. Unlike many other breeds of story, hard-boiled narratives do not rest on or even seek your approval of their heroes. For this reason, I am able to keep “Bound” from being irreparably damaged in my mind. Yes, the movie’s leads get all preachy about the wonderful (and completely $%*#ing imaginary I might add) world of recreational intercourse, but they’re anti-heroes anyway. The whole movie is about them teaming up to steal dirty money from the mafia, why would I assume these were moral, upright women? If they actually existed, I can buy that this is how they’d think.
Anyway, let’s get back to what makes this movie so great. After the somewhat laborious opening stretch, “Bound” kicks into high-gear with a nonstop barrage of thrills and excitement. The writing at play here is not good, it’s masterful; it understands the unpredictability of the human mind. Much of the film is centered around detailing complex plans, each of which seems to be perfect in the abstract, but when let loose into the wild, real human reactions throw everything out the window. If the girls want to evoke anger from a certain person, they are likely to succeed at doing it, but how sure are they about what that emotion will cause?
The central theme—and the primary plot motivator—of the movie is the fundamental mysteriousness of human nature, and how elusive and difficult it is to really know a person or be able to anticipate them. Violet has been in a relationship with Caesar much of her adult life, and yet he has no idea she’s a lesbian, and she is beginning to see a side of him she never knew of before. Corky was locked up, we discover, because a partner whom she thought she could trust betrayed her. Violet claims to want her help, but it is just as possible that she is using an outsider for her own purposes. (SPOILER. I KNOW MANY OF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THIS MOVIE, PLEASE DON’T RUIN IT) The film’s entire climax centers around Caesar trying to understand Violet’s behavior, culminating with her holding him at gunpoint, and he assuring her that she will not fire. Her reply, and the film’s basic message, is “Caesar, you don’t know s**t.” (SPOILER OVER) Over and over, we see “Bound” fixated on the beguiling ambiguity of human motivations. We can never really know one another, we can never really be sure what those closest to us might do.
If I was you, I would’ve shot me the night I came home with the money. But you didn’t.
And then there’s Caesar, my favorite character in the film, expertly portrayed by the indomitable Joe Pantoliano. Whatever plans Corky and Violet have, they all rest on being able to anticipate this one man. It should be a cakewalk, Violet has known him for years, and yet what makes “Bound” such a tour de force is the ways in which his reactions are so unexpected, and so logical. We are breathless as each frame passes, wincing as the machinations of the girls’ plans gently go wrong.
In the hands of almost any other writer, Caesar would have been a flat villain, but the brothers Wachowski turn him into a real, tactile person. He functions wonderfully as an antagonist, but I suspect he plays far more sympathetically than the script ever intended, because Pantoliano imbues him with such a sense of personality. He is loyal to his superiors, he can be counted on, he is reliable. We understand implicitly that his love for Violet is genuine, and—perhaps more tragically—that he trusts her deeply. He confides in her, depends on her, and likes her as a person. Certainly he expects a certain docile contentment from his lady, but that does not diminish his sincere affection. He is also relatively fair-minded, preferring thought and reason to violence, unlike his brutal and moronic colleague Johnnie Marzzone. Notice here an interesting tactic: the script introduces Johnnie, a thuggish moron who is in every way Caesar’s opposite, at about the midway point. This spoiled brat’s only interests seem to be trying to bed Violet and inflicting physical pain on others. He is beyond sympathy, and Caesar’s revulsion at everything about him makes us identify much more with him. It seems a strange move to deliberately exonerate your primary antagonist in such a way, most writers would do everything they could to make Caesar the meanest thug who ever lived. But that would simply be a less interesting movie. Instead, he is a real character with actual feelings, and betraying him is not so easy. It is perhaps “Bound’s” greatest victory.
You know what the difference is between you and me, Violet? Me neither.
And then of course, there are the technical credits. The marvelously talented Bill Pope shot the picture, and he makes each frame absolutely simmer with whiskey golds, vodka silvers, and oil blacks. In my opinion, this and “The Matrix” are his masterpieces. Don Davis contributes a wonderful score, always layered in the background and building the tension; his use of piano is especially deft. And the Wachowskis direct their actors with the comfort of old salts, eliciting winning performances from Gina Gershon and Jennifer Tilly, both of whom have floundered horribly in other pictures. Every piece of the movie moves together and works, making the whole thing look bizarrely easy.
The story goes that Warner Brothers saw “Bound” just after they had undertaken a horrible remake of “Diabolique” (we may see the original on this list), which was of a similar genre. They immediately chastised themselves for spending three times as much money to make a film that wasn’t half as sexy, energetic or enjoyable as “Bound.” After that, the prospect of these guys directing their magnum opus—a little science fiction flick called “The Matrix”—became a lot more appealing. The rest, as they say, is history.
0 Response to “Number 21”