Redbelt

Mamet discovers cinema.

Let's face it, we need as many serious writers as we can get, even pompous mannered ones. But we all know, and now Mamet himself does, that cinematic devices have almost no similarity to theatrical ones. At least in the modern era. His movies have been better radio plays than movies.

Now he decides to get serious and channels as many great cinematic traditions as he can fit in a single film.

We have the Raging Bull, flying eye sort of movie, where the camera engages in the space of the action. Scorcese hardly invented this, but he and Stallone merged it with the fight movie.

We have the Zen visual, where the character is supposed to have some transcendental value and we "see" it in the environment he sheds.

We have the modern fold where you have a public performance that validates your existence; we have the performance fold — usually a sports movie, where the good guy wins, natch; we have the movie which features movie people and the writing of the movie similar to what we see; and we have the notion of the content of the medium fighting the medium itself, here TeeVee.

Mamet chooses to use all three of the big strokes and all three of the folds. It seems a bit desperate.

I think you might be better off watching Raging Bull with Ghost Dog.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

This is certainly an entertaining movie. The action was really fun to watch. There was nothing unbelievable, which was a nice change for a martial arts film. The acting was even good. The issue I had, was it was a little shaky coming down the runway. You had characters dropping out, and a little of the dialog was strange. Overall, I would recommend it. Nice to watch. On a personal preference level, not a fan of the ending, but I may be alone on that. This is not like any other film I have seen. I give it a 9 for originality. I give it a 8 for action. I give it a 7 for plot, and a 4 for ending. Thanks, I hope you enjoy(ed) the movie!!

Just when one would expect 'Redbelt' to following a predictable path we are thrown off with a twist. Mamet tells a very layered story and most of the twists make sense. There are a few plot holes and perhaps the film could have used some energy boost. The pacing is arguably a tad slow in the beginning but as the events progress the viewer gets more and more drawn in. Mamet also brilliantly involves jiu-jitsu in the main story (unlike other martial arts film where the art is used merely as a device). The film is about honour (as the principles of Jiu Jitsu goes) and sacrifice but 'Redbelt' refuses to tread the clichéd path where the protagonist forcefully preaches the message to the viewer. The fights are well choreographed. The cinematography could have been better during the fight sequences. Mamet's cast is terrific. Chiwetel Ejiofor is exceptional as the noble and dignified Mike Terry. Terry ain't the clichéd hero. He is deeply passionate about jiu-jitsu but who won't resort to anger or bloodshed to achieve his means. He is willing to help anyone and he will do it through correct measures rather than the quick but 'wrong' way. Max Martini and Alice Braga are good. Emily Mortimer is fabulous. Tim Allen stands out in a small role. 'Redbelt' tells the story of a real(istic) hero who is not willing to give up his integrity or sacrifice his honour at any cost, who truly respects his passion and understands it.

I saw this movie and was very pleasantly surprised. I really liked this movie. Although at first I didn't know why.

After all, the script, as narrative, is full of holes. Big holes. Without going into details, the initial scene with shot fired has been accurately described as full of holes as swiss cheese. Yet this scene is a key part of the movie, referenced again and again. This is not good.

The title, pictures, and promos were all fundamentally misleading. I went expecting a martial arts film. But it turns out to be a drama. If you are looking for martial arts action, you'll come away very, very disappointed. This too is not good.

The final sequence is utterly incredible. This has been pointed out again and again. This is a basic plot failure. And this too is not good.

And yet ... and yet I came away really, really feeling good about this movie I had just seen. Why?

Well, first, if you view the script not as a narrative, but as a sequence of loosely connected scenes designed to evoke one emotion or thought or the other ... like tableaux vivants, or what TS Eliot called objective correlatives ... well, it works. For example, we have a main character stripped of everything in a series of narratively impossible scenes; and yet the emotions involved in "losing everything" are conveyed powerfully and evocatively. Likewise the ending redemptive sequence is narratively incredible; but emotionally very, very satisfying. This is all to the good.

The characters, acting, and characterizations were all excellent. Chiwetel Ejiofor as Mike Terry was superb. And the Mike Terry character is simply a delight, likable, appealing, interesting. Tim Allen was successfully cast against type. Ricky Jay's Marty Brown the sports promoter is utterly slimy and yet I couldn't take my eyes off of him. After every scene, I felt like running to the restroom to wash my hands and face and ears. He is sliminess personified. But all the characters were well drawn whether likable or disgusting. All to the good.

The cinematography and scenes were well drawn and well depicted. There were some really gripping, evocative shots I especially like: such as the Tim Allen character in dark profile. All to the good.

All in all, I'd say if you like emotion and objective correlatives, I think you'll like this movie. Don't go looking for martial arts, and don't go looking for a sound narrative; but if you want good, solid punch, you've come to the right place.

"Never stop fighting 'til the fight is done." Mamet's Untouchables.

From Jackie Chan gymnastics to Crouching Tiger fantasy and all martial arts in between, if you are watching to witness bloody realism, then go to snuff movies because most mainstream filmmakers would wish you to see the metaphor in the mayhem rather than the shock in the schlock. David Mamet's Redbelt is more than a Jiu-Jitsu competition for the highest belt; in the best tradition of complicated fight films, this competition is for the principled soul of academy owner/instructor Mike Terry (Chiwetel Ejiofor), the fight representing a challenge to his long-standing Samurai principle that "a competition is not a fight." Mamet's love affair with crisp crude language (See Spartan and Glengarry Glen Ross for starters) is in this film still a staccato rhythm mixed with minimal dialogue emphasizing the great issues such as authenticity and honesty rather than expletives. Mike is unwittingly thrown into the maelstrom of a con, which he should be able to evade according to his mantra that there is always an escape.

The academy needs cash; Terry is maneuvered by slick operatives to fight for $50, 000, contrary to his belief in the authenticity of a real fight and the sham of competition. What happens next is minor for the outcome but major for seeing the corruption of those around the fighter. It's all a house of cards, to pick the title of one of Mamet's challenging films. The playwright, director is constantly facing his heroes with con games that threaten their sense of right in an essentially chaotic universe.

Redbelt may be one of Mamet's less dense films, but it still reflects a filmmaker dedicated to unearthing the ambiguity through the metaphors of gritty, violent daily life, in which principle will not always defeat betrayal. I am thankful this film is neither the fantasy of so many Asian martial arts films these days, nor is it the inane romance of Never Back Down. "It is what it is," as today's tough guys might say, and that's a violent concept just right in the age of Iraq and presidential politics.