Assault on Precinct 13 (Jean-Francois Richet US/FR 2005)
Ethan Hawke, Lawrence Fishburne, Gabriel Byrne
Channel 4 – 10pm 30th November 2008One approaches Jean-Francois Richet’s remake of John Carpenter’s cult movie with some trepidation. The original marks the beginning of Carpenter’s hot-streak where he could do no wrong. Alternatively, the films he made up to and including
Starman (1984) were interesting genre movies that mixed assured subtly with a cold commercial exploitation drive. Given that all of Carpenter’s best films are essentially variations on the same theme and situations it is especially noteworthy that
Assault on Precinct 13 was his first film to mix a dystopian future with an action/western storyline. In short, I love Carpenter’s film and it is a definitely one of his best films. I will discuss the new film in reference to the original later.
Once more, I come to Richet’s remake with some apprehension. Perhaps this is unjustified, since Carpenter made no bones that his original is an update of John Ford’s
Rio Bravo. Of all Carpenter’s it is probably the one that could be directed by anybody with them mucking it up too much. To be fair to Richet, He has managed to turn in an exciting and twisty action movie. Yet in its debit he has also managed to strip the film of its wickedly bleak appeal by padding the narrative out with too many scenarios.
1) Plot IntroductionThis 2005 remake begins eight months before the siege where Sgt. Jake Roenick (Ethan Hawke) is involved in an undercover police operation. Due to some unforeseen problems it all goes wrong and his two colleagues are killed. Cut eight months later and Jake is working at the titular Precinct 13 on New Years Eve scarfing down alcohol and pills to get him over his trauma of the failed operation. Meanwhile, criminal cop-killer Marion Bishop (Laurence Fishburne) has just been captured after a gun battle. Due to the seasonal holiday he is being incarcerated for two days and then will be taken to court. The season brings bad weather in the form of a blizzard. Instead Bishop and a trio of low-level criminals - Ana, Beck and Smiley - are driven to Jake’s door to spend the night as oppose to continuing to a newer precinct. However, Precinct 13 is set to close at midnight, and already has a skeleton staff that consists of another much older cop (Brian Dennehy), and a Secretary (Iris Ferry). Also there is Jake’s Psychologist Dr. Alex Sabian (Maria Bello) who is similarly stranded because of the bad weather. The season has produced an inconvenience for the cast, all of which would all rather be somewhere else. It is at this point that an unknown force outside the precinct arrives and is intent on getting to Bishop.
2) What Richet’s Film DoesAbove is pretty much the storyline of the first half an hour of the film. Apart from Carpenter’s film, the set up and the action that takes place recall the first two Die Hard films and even the sub-genre of action-stroke-disaster narratives that occur in films like Hard Rain (1997). The meat of the film – in fact any film with a high concept such as a building that bad guys what to get into – is the actual action and tension of characters who are literally being active or inactive as the case may be. If done well, a film can string out a siege or a hostage drama for well over the ninety-minute mark, I would cite
Die Hard (1988) or perhaps
Speed (1995) as good modern examples. All a film like
Die Hard really is is an interchange between the establishment being weak and the outlaws being powerful. Bruce Willis’ John McClane is a jerk with a mouth on him, but we love him because he gets into awful and painful scrapes yet manages to keep his sense of humour intact. Die Hard is at times almost a laggy film but it rides on its black humour. Whether or not the film intends to be political appears to be of little concern to the filmmakers. Since it’s politics go about as far as saying that a punch in the face can solve most problems. As is the case where Holly McClane whacks an exploitative journalist for interviewing her children.
In place of a lead like John McClane
Assault On Precinct 13 has Jake. A sympathetic character who has been weakened by the experience of the failed undercover operation. His confidence is pressed in the instance where Dr. Sabian argues he is hiding behind a wound on his leg so as not to face up to his fear of responsibility. The filmmakers have gone to great pains to develop Jake as a character. He is also the character that others look to before and after the crisis hits. For example, he refuses to close up early at the Secretary’s request even though the precinct is to close at midnight. Once the violence commences it is Jake that takes a stand in spite of the bad odds and convinces the others to protect the criminals from the overwhelming force. Jake is perhaps a more developed character than McClane, but that doesn’t make him a more interesting one. Essentially he is a well-worn police character and is not dissimilar from disenfranchised cops in numerous movies; Roy Scheider’s Martin Brody from
Jaws (1975) springs to mind. Jake is the most developed character and is the focus of the film yet he ultimately weakens it because of his generic characteristics.
While Jake may be over-characterised to the point of cliché, Bishop is the exact opposite. His character is introduced as mysterious and calculating, and after 100-odd minutes we have learnt only a few scrapes of additional information. Bishops mythic and revered criminal gangboss probably looked a perfect fit on paper for Fishburne. He was obviously hired off the back of his portrayal of Morpheus in
The Matrix films. And yet, his Morpheus persona smoothers any potential that the character had. We don’t need to know anything about him since he’s a bad-ass, a well-read, stylish and silent mastermind. All he’s expected to do is fulfil that remit, which he does admirably. Although in his credit, Bishop is afforded a very Carpenter-esque macho raison d’être. He exclaims the he will fight for his self-preservation and for nothing more and is nobody’s ally. This is not unlike Ice Cube’s memorably lunkheaded promise to come back “when the tide is high” in
Ghost of Mars (2001). In essence we are meant to admire Bishop from a distance. He is not characterised as being good or bad but cynical. That he comes out of the film in the middle of the spectrum of good and bad is testament to the brutality of the corrupt police.
The characterisation of Bishop is for the most part replicated in that of the rest of the cast. The two female characters are basically victims. (I may well put down my thoughts about
The Posiden Adventure (1973) in a later entry in reference to the female characters) The three other criminals are, like Bishop, not portrayed as either scum or particularly bad. They serve as ambiguous (should that be weak?) characters that challenge Jakes leadership and confidence. Can he really trust them with guns? Is it better to leave the defenceless to save his own skin? Of the three Beck (John Leguizamo) is the most interesting. He is in the midst of a comedown from a undisclosed drug. As such he jitters between sympathy and annoyance, selflessness and selfishness.
Aside from these characters the rest of the cast are made of up Police characters. Two are in the precinct and the rest are outside attacking it under the direction of Gabriel Byrne’s corrupt Captain. Whereas the original dealt with only the question of survival and the breaking down of the barriers between police officer and criminal – Richet’s adds another angle in the form of police corruption. The fear of betrayal in a tight-knit group produces a bleak environment. This is ground that was trodden in Carpenter’s films; this time
The Thing (1982). Yet it isn’t unlike the scenario of
The Night of the Living Dead (1968) – or even
The Evil Dead (1982) – the former is almost a blueprint for paranoid siege films. The police corruption narrative push again recalls
Die Hard 2 (1991). Richet’s film is undoubtedly more sophisticated than Renny Harlin’s fun but dumb sequel. Yet it ends up feeling more like an silly action take on
L.A. Confidential (1997), than a smart genre movie. An action take with none of the detail, characterisation or political thrust. The police angle while admiral is little more than a bloodless excuse for a narrative thrust. Yet it is more damaging to compare the effectiveness of the political dimension when considered with Carpenter’s original, as I will discuss later.
What Richet’s film does achieve by utilising a political dimension is a lean towards questions of police brutality and racism in the forces. It would be very uncharitable to condemn the film when it channel’s a racist and cliquey police force narrative. Once thing that struck me when considering the film afterwards was the whiteness of the police compared to the four criminals who are black or Puerto-Rican. The racial bent - be it indirectly - gave the four criminals a more put-upon appearance. Ana, Beck and Smiley are minor criminals, all are characterised as likeable nuanced individuals who do their bit for their own preservation and show care for others safety. Could Richet be asking us to consider the racism and discrimination that is at work in American society that is documented in incidences such as Rodney Kings tragic murder and the poverty that is more likely to affect non-white Americans? Perhaps. These are questions that are not asked nor are they played out but they stand in direct contrast with Carpenter’s film which pitted a multi-racial criminal force against a precinct led by a black officer.
Despite this goodwill, my first reaction was not of Richet playing it smart but the he was providing a number of non-white victims to feel sorry about but ultimately not care for. For example, It is this lack of warmth that weakens Bishop as a character. Despite Jake’s trust and protection of him he remains a cynical outsider. The three other criminals all die, and despite their honourable stand to protect the precinct are each shown to be victims. They serve the narrative of Jake and develop from cynical criminals to weak characters that in the midst of a crisis fall first.
3) The Original film and the Stylistic Choices of the 2005 Remake
The long introduction to the film that I included served two purposes, 1) it introduced the film until the events of the premise, and 2) it exposed the fatal problem with the entire film and reason to remake a film that has such a descriptive title.
Assault on Precinct 13 (2005) makes the decision to develop the characters and the enemies. Yet it dilutes the 1976 film’s primary pleasure, which is that of an efficient and tense film about a singular experience. The title of the film could almost be a newspaper headline, insomuch as it documents and summarises the film. It is also a great shorthand for telling a story.
The opening act of Carpenter’s film introduces many of the same elements but quicker and without the same amount of detail. Since we know what will happen in the second act, the first act is bedded in tension and expectation. It makes little difference who the attackers are, since we already know that they will attack. Carpenter’s enemies serve a distanced and fantastical quality that he replicated in straight horror films, such as Michael Myres in
Halloween (1978) and the avenging sailors of
The Fog (1979). Assault on Precinct 13 is like a horror film moonlighting as an action film. This horror meets action owes a debt to Romero’s
Night of the Living Dead. But it serves two purposes. It makes the enemies more scary and the characters more relatable. The less we know about the enemy the more we relate to the characters in the precinct. It is this lack of detail that leaves room for characterisation. Richet’s film fills in the blanks at the expense of the tight plotting, above I have described how the new elements produce new avenues (political) of exploration but they further elevate the singular experience of Jake, while the other characters wallow in stereotypes and bit parts. Jake’s story is so emphasised that his companions fall away without much characterisation and this weakens an essential plank of all siege films. This is the idea of a team banding together against odds and the trials and fractures that occur. These elements are more then enough for an entire film while offering good parts for the actors. It was the extraordinary abuse and tension that the team shares that makes the cycle of films that began with
The Birds (1963) and continues through Romero’s and Carpenter’s films so rewatchable and open to reinvention. As I will go on to describe below, the characters are squeezed of characterisation because the opposition are not aloof criminals or birds or zombies.
The shallow use of police corruption as an angle is another problem with the fleshing out of the enemy. Since the film suggests that the good will out, Jake’s dilemma is never about much more than his own psychological profile and overcoming his fear of responsibility. True, the corruption angle develops his clichéd weak cop but his devotion rarely allows for much doubt. A less charitable view of the police corruption element is that it is used as an attempt to set the film within the modern world to justify the events. It is to fuel the narrative and nothing more, yet it is not used with a lot of economy. And what does it really mean to a film with an exploitation title? Richets film appears to be superficially reaching for the 1970’s government paranoia genre; Films ranging from
Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1971) to
The Conversation (1974). Those films did not get bogged down in how much they used the political angle. It was enough to see the affect that corruption and deceit had on the leads. Whereas Richet’s film falls between explaining why the events are linked to police corruption without truly exploring them. The totality of the weak police development is seen in the exchange between Capt. Duvall (Byrne) and Bishop, where Bishop describes how Duvall was once a more straight officer and he was the ruthless one. That’s pretty much all we get for the reasons, one wonders if the audience is supposed to fill the blanks with narratives of other films. Yet, as I’ve described above, the films that primarily come to mind are not first-rate films like
The Conversation of
Baadasssss – or even
Enemy of the State (1998) – but
Die Hard 2 and
Hard Rain. I believe that a developed enemy would have been better served in a plot about a money heist. That way the violence could speak for itself as in a film like For A Few Dollars More (1965).
The new film’s decision to flesh out the enemy at the expense of the atmosphere inside the precinct is not the only change that weakens the original film’s strength. The other most grossly valued element is the precinct itself. The film makers devalue the films title by setting a lot of the action outside the precinct. Jake’s failed undercover operation is one, but the time spent with Capt. Duvall in a car, and the arrest of Bishop are examples that precede the assault. These slow down the pacing but they do serve a purpose in that they build towards the action. However, it is the third act that does the most damage to the 1976 film’s plotting. In Carpenter’s film the heroes are backed into the basement of the cellar as the terror outside closes in. The few that remain gamble their lives on a plan that may prove worthless. They survive, but the commitment to the precinct and protection of the criminals is seen in the comradeship that has developed between the two main leads. Cut thirty years on and the solution is grander, but the dramatics are minor. Richet’s heroes escape the precinct only to be betrayed. The few that remain run to a nearby wood, in which the attackers follow. This ending is unsatisfactory for two reasons.
First, if one were not to consider the original the effect of the third act’s developments are pathetically generic. So many action films littered across sub-genres favour a final standoff that weakens the best set pieces that have gone before. Here is a brief list of films from off the top of my head that do just that,
Speed,
Spider-Man (2002),
Face Off (1997), and
Cellular (2004). Something that one always remembers of Speed is that it chucks its strongest element in the bin in favour of a protracted conclusion on a subway. This is really a case of a film not being able to get enough of itself. Spider-Man for example asks the most its hero when he is forced to choose between saving some children or his love interest. Once he has saved both, the hero and villain fight in a deserted building, where Spiderman is victorious. It’s a messy and unnecessary scene that gets in the way of the strength of the film’s concluding scene in the graveyard.
Assault on Precinct 13 (2005) spirals out on a tangent yet all the tension of the siege is replaced for a chase. As if a gun battle in a wood was really a satisfactory conclusion to a film about a siege. It is as if the filmmakers are aching to get out of the building. A much better conclusion can be found in
Hard Boiled (1992). There the ultimate villain confronts the heroes at the entrance of the besieged hospital and in front of all the police. John Woo elevates all that has gone before by loading the conclusion on top of all the stakes that have gone before. This provides a conclusion that is not ancillary to the main story.
Secondly, as mentioned before the 1976 film keeps its action within the walls of the precinct. Therefore the thrust of the violence is never redirected. The title of the film provides a tension that is an undercurrent in the first act. While the second and third acts fulfil the title’s promise, to the extent that the building is as much a central character in the story. In keeping the action in one place, the characters are emphasised as a team. Whereas the narrative in the 2005 film begins with Jake away from the precinct, so its actually fitting that the film is resolved away too.
4) ConclusionsThere have been two main critical considerations running through this review. Those are considerations of the film on its own merits and the extent to which it compares to Carpenter’s original. It is important to not let the 1976 film dominate impressions of Richet’s film.
On its own terms it is an entertaining and impressive film. One that feels undoubtedly like the kind of film that follows a path laid by Hawke’s earlier film
Training Day (2002); A cop film with a nasty edge that factored in the police force’s treatment of black communities. That film’s emphasis on the relationship between Denzel Washington and Hawke appears replicated in the characters of Jake and Bishop. Yet, since Bishop is never developed beyond his gravitas, Jake is left to dominate the film. This is at the expense of the team-element of the siege. Given the emphasis, it would likely have made a stronger film to strip it of the other characters entirely, and have the narrative be about Jake, Bishop and the police. As it is, we have an undeveloped dynamic between two generic characters, who together escape the precinct to fight in an unremarkable conclusion. The desire to move the characters out of the building is probably its primary failing. However, aside from the shallow plotting the action is well mounted, the violence suitably nasty – although not as disturbing or shocking as the original – and the introduction of paranoia to the ‘team’ is effective.
Richet’s movie is by no means bad, it fills 100 or so minutes successfully and one gets the sense that they got what they expected with the occasional twist and gruesome display of violence. Yet it pales in comparison to Carpenter’s because of its need to explain everything, and give context to the events. The expansion of characterisation before the siege dampens the tension and makes for a less streamlined move. Carpenter’s film is a delight because it has a singular pleasure. It tells its story quickly with pace, little dialogue, exposition and explanation. We empathise with the characters directly because we don’t know what’s going on beyond the odd reference to a dead girl and gang pride. Richet’s film is a laggy film that never really exploits its original and best idea. And yet, it is unfair to compare it directly to the original because it isn’t the same film and it shouldn’t be. While insubstantial, the police corruption storyline is a new avenue that drives the story. Richet successfully turns in a very modern and stylised take on a formula that is older than Ford’s
Rio Bravo. However, ‘very modern’ cuts both ways. Yes it is new, but sadly it can’t help but appear generic. That is the killer blow of some of the films changes – such as those in the third act – the film never develops its changes enough to break free from excuses for ‘stuff to happen’. Yet it ties itself to the narrative of the original without exploiting its best elements.
(I love the bit where Dennis Hopper's head comes off)
