David Mamet once explained the difference between art and entertainment. Entertainment, he said, reinforces what you already know, and tells you that you're right. Art, on the other hand, suggests that what you know is wrong, and that your beliefs might not be correct.
In "To Live and Die in L.A.", director William Friedkin inverts, twists, and eventually demolishes the standard "Cop seeks vengeance for his partner's murder (with 3 days til retirement!)" formula. The viewer learns that 1) not every law enforcement agent always has the public good in mind, 2) real people generally aren't either 'good' or 'evil' all the time, 3) if a cop (or in this case, Secret Service agent) takes the law into his own hands, he WILL pay for it one way or another, and 4) whether you're a cop or a criminal, things usually don't go according to plan.
This information is directly opposed to what we've learned from countless action movies of the 1980s. Watching the "Lethal Weapon" movies, or anything with Schwarznegger, Stallone or Seagal, suggests that it's fun and entertaining when cops take the law into their own hands. Notice that no matter how much damage Riggs & Murtaugh cause, they can laugh about it with the captain later, and the world is always a better place for it. And no matter how many people's civil rights are trampled, and no matter how illegal the cops' activities are, everything always works out in the end, and the only people who get hurt are the "bad" people.
"To Live and Die in L.A." shows what would happen if Riggs & Murtaugh tried their antics in the real world. While Martin Riggs' arrogant recklessness is heroic and hilarious, Richard Chance's arrogant recklessness ruins a lot of lives, not least his own. When it's over, justice has hardly been served, and even though the bad guys are dead, there's no hint that L.A. is a better place for it.
With all these "Lethal Weapon" comparisons, I should make it clear that "To Live and Die in L.A." came out in 1985, two years before the first LW movie.
All that stuff aside, this is one rock-solid movie. Willem Dafoe uses his character's eccentricities to create (for my money) one of the best villains in cinematic history, even if the movie doesn't see Rick Masters quite that way. William Peterson is incredible and brings a lot of depth to his performance; I'm not one to critique someone else's opinion, but I don't understand the users who complained that he's "wooden." Chance is an egomaniacal, scheming nutjob with a death wish; he really believes that he's above life and death, and it never crosses his mind that he might be wrong. Peterson brings this all out.
Dean Stockwell is in his element, playing a scumbag who knows everything about everyone. John Pankow was a wonderful surprise, bringing all sorts of conflicting and confused ideas to Vukovich, which is perfectly appropriate. When things really go wrong, he goes to pieces. Again, some users complained that he was overacting, but ask yourself how YOU'D behave. Nobody ever gives Darlanne Fleugel much credit, but she's terrific here. There's a whole lot going on in Ruth's head, and in many ways, she's the central character to this whole play. Pay attention. And I'd be remiss in my duties if I didn't point out Steve James and Jack Hoar as two of Masters' criminal associates. They're both tough, intimidating, and surprisingly multi-dimensional.
And I haven't even mentioned 1) the car chase to end all car chases, 2) the copious amount of nudity, 3) the perfect fit of Wang Chung's soundtrack with the day-glo L.A. look, even as all hell breaks loose and men confront the dark depths of their souls (huh?), and 4) a climactic shock that WILL knock you for a loop.
In "To Live and Die in L.A.", director William Friedkin inverts, twists, and eventually demolishes the standard "Cop seeks vengeance for his partner's murder (with 3 days til retirement!)" formula. The viewer learns that 1) not every law enforcement agent always has the public good in mind, 2) real people generally aren't either 'good' or 'evil' all the time, 3) if a cop (or in this case, Secret Service agent) takes the law into his own hands, he WILL pay for it one way or another, and 4) whether you're a cop or a criminal, things usually don't go according to plan.
This information is directly opposed to what we've learned from countless action movies of the 1980s. Watching the "Lethal Weapon" movies, or anything with Schwarznegger, Stallone or Seagal, suggests that it's fun and entertaining when cops take the law into their own hands. Notice that no matter how much damage Riggs & Murtaugh cause, they can laugh about it with the captain later, and the world is always a better place for it. And no matter how many people's civil rights are trampled, and no matter how illegal the cops' activities are, everything always works out in the end, and the only people who get hurt are the "bad" people.
"To Live and Die in L.A." shows what would happen if Riggs & Murtaugh tried their antics in the real world. While Martin Riggs' arrogant recklessness is heroic and hilarious, Richard Chance's arrogant recklessness ruins a lot of lives, not least his own. When it's over, justice has hardly been served, and even though the bad guys are dead, there's no hint that L.A. is a better place for it.
With all these "Lethal Weapon" comparisons, I should make it clear that "To Live and Die in L.A." came out in 1985, two years before the first LW movie.
All that stuff aside, this is one rock-solid movie. Willem Dafoe uses his character's eccentricities to create (for my money) one of the best villains in cinematic history, even if the movie doesn't see Rick Masters quite that way. William Peterson is incredible and brings a lot of depth to his performance; I'm not one to critique someone else's opinion, but I don't understand the users who complained that he's "wooden." Chance is an egomaniacal, scheming nutjob with a death wish; he really believes that he's above life and death, and it never crosses his mind that he might be wrong. Peterson brings this all out.
Dean Stockwell is in his element, playing a scumbag who knows everything about everyone. John Pankow was a wonderful surprise, bringing all sorts of conflicting and confused ideas to Vukovich, which is perfectly appropriate. When things really go wrong, he goes to pieces. Again, some users complained that he was overacting, but ask yourself how YOU'D behave. Nobody ever gives Darlanne Fleugel much credit, but she's terrific here. There's a whole lot going on in Ruth's head, and in many ways, she's the central character to this whole play. Pay attention. And I'd be remiss in my duties if I didn't point out Steve James and Jack Hoar as two of Masters' criminal associates. They're both tough, intimidating, and surprisingly multi-dimensional.
And I haven't even mentioned 1) the car chase to end all car chases, 2) the copious amount of nudity, 3) the perfect fit of Wang Chung's soundtrack with the day-glo L.A. look, even as all hell breaks loose and men confront the dark depths of their souls (huh?), and 4) a climactic shock that WILL knock you for a loop.