Thought I might as well start a discussion thread on the classic 1985 film, To Live and Die in L.A. I was just watching it and became eager to discuss with others. I believe there are fellow fans of the film on the board… captainsolo? 😃
In any case, everyone who hasn’t seen it should check out immediately. Normal revenge/crime film instead becomes a noir-esque character study with tense, suspenseful sequences and brilliant, visceral action scenes. Rarely are both character AND plot given such great attention. There’s one scene involving cop and criminal on the opposite sides of a single wall that is the definition of nail-biting. The movie really does explore the hellish soul-sucking void that is Los Angeles and the terribly unhealthy relationships, on which even the protagonist thrives. Trust is a commodity as counterfeit as the antagonists’ fake bills. The hellish, fiery finale, the culmination of all that is wrong with L.A., is truly something to behold. All the performances, from the undeniably underrated William Petersen to Willem Dafoe to Darlanne Fluegel to John Turturro, are magnificent. I do wish those first two got more juicy roles nowadays. Might be Friedkin’s masterpiece, even over The Exorcist. (For reference, I still need to check out The French Connection).
Oh and Wang Chung KILLS it with the score!
However, I’ve always had one problem with the movie…
SPOILERS (for a 31-year old film)
I admire the ending, but I hope fellow To Live and Die in L.A. fans will forgive me when I say that I don’t think the execution completely works. In fact, I actually PREFER the studio-mandated ending.
When Petersen’s character eventually tempts fate one too many time, Chance (get it?) is fatally shot in the face in a seemingly shocking moment. While I recognize why it might seem like a good idea to kill Chance (as, aside from taking many risks, he has done horrible things- led to the death of an FBI agent/blackmailed Darlanne Fluegel’s character, Ruth, for sex), I feel it is counter-intuitively the more “expected” outcome, particularly considering the title of “To Live and DIE in L.A.” But, for the plot to follow the expected outcome is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself: what I really don’t like is how his death is essentially electing the traditional trope on the part of the story to “punish” the protagonist for his transgressions. In killing him, the movie follows traditional morality, eschewing something more innovative. I think a truly cynical and unique approach would have been to let him live, showing how, unlike traditional movies, amorality often goes relatively unpunished in noir city. Friedkin, in the featurette for the studio-mandated alternate ending, defends his killing of Chance as exposing how the random hand of fate; far from it, Friedkin actually affirms the notion of fate as NOT random but rather a deliberate moralizing force.
But, really, I would have been fine with all that, if not for that ending scene. Again, I GET what the movie was going for. Chance’s meek partner, John Vukovich, is almost “possessed” in a weird sense by Chance’s spirit, having learned that to live in L.A. he must be just as cruel. He takes Chance’s place, deciding to continue blackmailing Ruth for information and sex. It’s a lovely idea and an appropriate thematic conclusion to a movie about falseness, but where it fails for me is execution. Vukovich comes in with Chance’s demanding masculine swagger, garbed in a “cool” outfit that doesn’t fit in with any of the character’s previous attire. Moreover, he seems to be directed to not only act LIKE Chance but rather literally ape Petersen’s performance, discarding his normal character. As-is, Vukovich’s transformation is VERY literal and heavy-handed. In my opinion, the scene would have worked far better if, at the start of the scene, Vukovich seemed unchanged, only for it to become shockingly evident through his dialogue with Ruth that he has changed a great deal. Then, you have the dichotomy between an unthreatening, likeable exterior and secretively predatory actions, which, would seem to fit in with the movie’s theme better; in L.A., nothing is what it seems because the outside doesn’t match (rather than painfully highlighting) the inside. The flashbacks of Chance are also too on-the-nose.
In contrast, the studio ending, while a seemingly bad idea conceptually, is magnificently executed! There, Chance survives, and, alongside Vukovich, is discreetly transferred to L.A. On a sheerly visual level, the ice of Alaska makes a lovely contrast with the hellish heat (exposed especially in the fiery finale) of L.A. For reasons I more or less stated above, I like the notion that punishment eludes the two agents; the subversion of the title works to form a thematically fitting ending. The audience is left a little uneasy at the broken expectation that Chance doesn’t die after all his crimes; confusion gives way to understanding, as they realize that life doesn’t always punish the guilty like in the movies. It’s also VERY in keeping with theme that their chief, implied to have discovered all their actions, would simply deal with it under the table rather than jail them; in terms of superficial appearances, their transgressions, if exposed, might reflect badly on their chief, who publicly takes credit for the success of the case. The cherry on top is Chance’s wry smile, performed aptly be Petersen, as he realizes who betrayed him.
Sorry for the long rant but thought I had to admit that. Rarely do I find a studio-mandated ending, directly opposed by the director, to be more satisfying. Anyone else happen to agree… or vehemently disagree for that matter? 😉