Professor Jeff Dudas (2:15)

Welcome to the New Books Network.

Professor Stephen Dyson (2:19)

I'm Professor Stephen Dyson.

Professor Jeff Dudas (2:21)

And I'm Professor Jeff Dudas, and we

Professor Stephen Dyson (2:22)

are here today to discuss the merits and the themes of two Michael Mann movies, Heat and Collateral. This is part of our retrospective on man, and we've been endeavoring to find the best Michael Mann movie and sort of exploring what seems to drive his, his cinema along the way. Heat and Collateral, these, these were matchups that were sort of randomly determined, but they have actually thrown together two heavyweights here. Two really sort of well regarded Michael Mann movies. Heat carries a 84% rotten toma score from the critics and a 94% audience score. So actually significantly better regarded by the audience and the critics. That can mean two things, I think. One would be that there just is that divergence, right, between the popular and the sort of critical reception. The other time that happens is if, if a movie kind of the reception to. It changes over time, right, because the, the reviews are going to come out when the movie first comes out and if it later grows in stature, the audience is going to represent. Represent that. And I think that's probably what's happened with Heat then. Natural has an 86% critics score and an 84% audience score. So they're pretty well matched in terms of Rotten Tomatoes. But how are they matched in terms of what we think about them? You want to start with Heat?

Professor Jeff Dudas (3:36)

Sure.

Professor Stephen Dyson (3:36)

Okay, so why don't you give me your take and then I'll tell you why you're wrong.

Professor Jeff Dudas (3:40)

Okay. So Heat I saw in the theater when it was first released, so. And then I had not seen it, I had not rewatched it in its entirety until now. Seeing flashes, bits and pieces here and there.

Professor Stephen Dyson (3:52)

Memes.

Professor Jeff Dudas (3:53)

Memes. Yes, memes, which I guess we probably will talk about a little bit. So I was rewatching it not with new eyes, but with pretty. With relatively new eyes, I think, this time. And it is what it is advertised as. And it is, I think, what it has come to be seen retrospectively, which is a sort of bravora showdown between two historically great actors of their generation, Al Pacino and Robert De Niro. And I think the. The movie is also interesting in that it features, it offsets those actors performances with what were in the mid-90s, a kind of a generation of actors who were kind of, if not up and coming, you know, pretty well established. So people like Ashley Judd and Val Kililmer and Michael McKean, all people who were pretty, pretty well regarded and pretty high up, I suppose, in the industry. And so it was a kind of a blockbuster movie. And it was a blockbuster movie in a way that I think Michael Mann's later movies become like that. You can tell that Mann himself is growing in stature and prestige within the industry because the casts are getting stronger and stronger and stronger. And so I think the movie does a really effective job of spotlighting those characters. You had said off screen that you. You think that it. That Heat is successful in a way that some of the Other man movies maybe are not quite as successful because they offer full explorations of all of their characters.

Professor Stephen Dyson (5:31)

I think, to. To a remarkable degree, to a degree that is a pinnacle, almost as good as it's possible to do that. It's just incredible if you think of how fully drawn, even the quote unquote, peripheral characters are. Like, there's a whole world here, you know? And the movie is, to me, so efficient in its use of sort of screen time and so skillful in its portrayal of not only who these people are and giving them plausible ways to interact each other, but also the degree to which they represent, like, quite important sort of philosophical principles. I find it incredible. I mean, I was blown away, rewatching by how skillful it is on precisely that point.

Professor Jeff Dudas (6:14)

Yeah. I mean, think of a character like the young Natalie Portman. Right. Who's another. Like, I'm not sure. I think this may have been one of her first big roles, but I'm not certain of that. But even her character is pretty fully drawn.

Professor Stephen Dyson (6:32)

I feel like her dad, who we never see, I know a lot about. Yeah.

Professor Jeff Dudas (6:37)

And so I think that this is, up to this point, maybe the most successful of Michael Mann's movies in using those kinds of elliptical information drops that he likes to do as revelations of backstory or revelations of character. They work here, I think, in other movies. They don't always work, particularly the earlier ones. It doesn't always work very well. And you're left. I'm thinking of. Well, this is a later movie. I'm thinking of Ferrari, for example, in which it's really hard to understand who these characters are and what's driving them or motivating them. Or even Last of the Mohicans, I think, suffers from the same thing. But here, that kind of elliptical information drop, I think, is. Is effective and it works. And so I think it's. I think it's a good movie. I do. I don't know that this is. I wouldn't consider this to be a compulsively watchable movie. I know that this is a movie for some people, that they consider it a touchdown touchstone. They return to it over and over and over again. I don't see it in that way. And I. I don't see either of the. Of Pacino or DA's performances as the kinds of performances that are legacy defining for Their. For their careers, I think.

Professor Stephen Dyson (7:49)

I totally disagree.

Professor Jeff Dudas (7:51)

Okay.

Professor Stephen Dyson (7:51)

I think it is that touchstone movie. I think it's. For one thing, it's a. It's a culmination point for Man. You know, there are a lot of his themes that are in that movie. Themes particularly from Thief and Manhunter. So from Thief, the notion of the. The very precise kind of, you know, master criminal who's fully drawn and who has a code and is operating in a world that is no more moral and very frequently much less moral. The legit world is much less moral than the illicit world of the kind of master criminal who's trying to find a way to sort of reconcile the criminal pursuit, but also just the human pursuit of a way of existing in a corrupt world with the difficulties that he's confronted with. And he's trying to ultimately find a way out, trying to find a way to transcend the corruption that surrounds him, to build a proper existence for himself. You've got the parallels in Manhunter between Vincent Hannah and Will Graham and the degree to which, you know, to one extent, the kind of legitimate system throws up an anti body to the illegitimate. And that's what's really going on with De Niro and Pacino, with Neil Macaulay and Vincent Hannah. Or in Manhunter, it's what was going on between the two Will Graham, or even between Lecter and Will, although Lecter's a more liminal kind of boundary crossing figure. So you've got that going on, but also the cost that that imposes on these individuals. The degree to which Graham and Hannah both kind of have to become what it is they're pursuing in order to, you know, get the drop or sort of win ultimately. So you got those things going on, and then in Heat, I think you just have wider things that actually push it beyond. Is certainly beyond Thief and arguably beyond Manhunter. You've got the, the. The degree to which the whole world is built that I just. That I was alluding to.

Professor Jeff Dudas (9:48)

But.

Professor Stephen Dyson (9:49)

But I think it's not, you know, I think you were portraying it in terms of. It's really good. He got some great character actors together and got like nice performances out of him and all the rest of it. I think it's so skillful that it lends a verit similitude to the world, that it allows it to make sort of broader philosophical points about, you know, the degree to which you can have a plan in your life versus you're just subject to random chaos, the coursing of streams of evil through societies that just lay latent, but can erupt at any point. The question of whether there's any real morality in the world or it's all just kind of chance or there's any real human ability to be a sort of straight shooter, or everything is just corruption. And everyone's very kind of atomized and individualistic and out for themselves and just sort of great transcendent themes like the theme of time, you know, how transient is life. And life is shown as transient and heat in many different ways. And the degree to which some of the characters actually recognize this. Neil recognizes he's got no time, right. He's got 30 seconds and has to be willing to abandon Anything in 30 seconds. Lives his life on a clock, and it's the clock by which the police are pursuing him. But also, Vincent's character is constantly saying, I'm out of time, I've got no time. He also is aware that he's. He's in a transient moment. And how do you live a life in transient moments? Is it worth trying to hold onto anything?

Professor Jeff Dudas (11:16)

Yeah. Yes. I think those are all sharp insights and points. The other thing that I. The other parallel that I really picked up on between the Vincent Hannah and the Neil McCauley character is that they're both portrayed as patriarchs in their own way. They're sort of workplace crew patriarchs. They're both clearly the father figures of the people who are around them, although they are either dysfunctional or just non existent in actual paternal relationships and sort of the more conventional ones. So. And they both sort of are looked upon in that way by the sort of the, the family or the team over whom they're, you know, they exercise some authority and some moral authority. And so that struck me as a sort of an interesting counterpoint to the, the ideas that you're just raising about an atomized world in which everybody is just sort of left to themselves and kind of out on their own. I, I think that's a little more complicated in what, what man is offering in which, you know, there's the 30 seconds, right, to neurosis over and over again. You know, you've got to be willing to drop everything at, you know, when you see the heat coming around the corner in 30 seconds. But he actually doesn't do that. Right. And he never does that. It's not just with the Amy Brennaman character that he is disinclined from doing that. He never really does that. Right. And this ends up being his downfall. Right. He doesn't give up on Chris Right. When he probably should. Right. Chris is clearly a liability. Val Kilmer character's clearly a liability who should be cut free, but he doesn't. And it's, it becomes a real problem for him. He should absolutely allow Waingro to go. Right. But he won't. And why won't he? Because Waingro is the person who's responsible essentially for destroying McCauley's family.

Professor Stephen Dyson (13:13)

Well, yes, and that, of course, is the fatal mistake. Right. There's that great scene where Neil and Edie are going to leave and they're free and Neil actually passes through a, through a tunnel and he's bathed in light and you can see he's free.

Professor Jeff Dudas (13:26)

Right.

Professor Stephen Dyson (13:26)

And then he reenters the darkness on the other side of the tunnel and then he's like, I can't.

Professor Jeff Dudas (13:30)

This is the other thing, right? This is the other thing that he doesn't actually leave behind. I mean, to leave Everything behind in 30 seconds also means that you leave behind the life of crime. Right. Which he won't do either. So. And I think so it's. He's a character. And this is maybe the difference between, to the extent that these. I mean, I think you're quite right that the Pacino and the De Niro characters are imagined as dark twins. But the one big difference seems to be that De Niro cannot leave behind. He can't take his own advice, whereas Pacino, you know, can. Right. Like he, he, he saves his sort

Professor Stephen Dyson (14:06)

of stepdaughter and then leaves her in the house.

Professor Jeff Dudas (14:09)

Yeah, right. And he's okay with doing that.

Professor Stephen Dyson (14:10)

Right. But, but, but isn't. Don't you think there's a broader point being made here, right, which is the, this, the sort of impossibility of having secure attachments in a transient world full of incompetence and full of evil. Right. Because what goes on is Vincent is able to leave his. He does successfully leave the transient attachment and he kills Neil. Right. So Neil makes the choice you think is the humanist choice, right? Which is, you know, in the end or he's not able to successfully leave stuff behind either because he's kind of killed. So. So Neil ends up dead. Vincent ends up effectively alone. So he wins by being alone. But. But neither of them are able to, to form successful.

Professor Jeff Dudas (14:57)

But Neil's making long term establishments, Right. They're both making choices that Neil is clearly making choices here.

Professor Stephen Dyson (15:02)

Right.

Professor Jeff Dudas (15:03)

He's not fated to do the things that he does, I don't think. Right, well.

Professor Stephen Dyson (15:06)

Or is he? I mean, I think that's A question.

Professor Jeff Dudas (15:08)

There's multiple points at which he couldn't. He'd make opposite choices. And he's. I mean, I think in each of those moments he is shown as, you know, there's a fixation, tends to be a fixation, a close up on his face, clearly with the idea that we're supposed to be understanding that he is weighing a decision which he makes. And I would have to go back and watch more closely again, but I did not get that sense from the. From the Vincent Hanna character. It seems more instinctual. He's more compulsive and more compulsive. Less. There seems to be less kind of weighing of options. He seems to be less burdened by the sort of the. The internal drive or instinct that he has. Right. To. To just be constantly chasing. Right. So I think there. There may be some differences there that I think they're maybe not facsimiles of each other.

Professor Stephen Dyson (15:58)

Yeah, well, so. So Vincent is. Is indisciplined. Right. And I. And I think that's because he's coming from the legit side of society, so he's able to be indisciplined and kind of careen around the place and doing the memeable. So he's very loud and he's. And he's able to do that because he's the policeman. Right. So he's from the legit side of society. Whereas Neil has to be quiet and disciplined. And he's much, much more kind of successful in that, you know, at least initially and has been for a long time. Because he's from the. He's from the criminal world. And if he's not in discipline, I mean, what's his fist? John Voight's character says, it explicitly says Vincent only has to hit. This guy only has to hit once.

Professor Jeff Dudas (16:41)

Right?

Professor Stephen Dyson (16:41)

Right. You. You can never miss. You have to hit every time. And that's the difference in discipline. But neither of them are able to solve that conundrum. Right. They have to adopt different strategies to be able to successfully exist in the world. But the world does not allow them to exist. You know, Neil has a very disciplined life, and into it is thrown by fate, the sadist Waingro. That is the start of things just blowing up. He's able to handle everything else. He's able to handle Chris and the rest of the characters because he's like a good manager and so forth. And he's found people who have talents that he needs and he's worked around their weaknesses to try and keep the whole thing Together. But Wayne Groy is the one that blows it up.

Professor Jeff Dudas (17:23)

Right. Yeah. There's the element of chaos. I see. I think that's correct. And Neil's ultimate downfall is that he becomes undisciplined.

Professor Stephen Dyson (17:34)

Right. But in pursuit of a different existence for himself. Right. Which. Which I think the movie is saying it's impossible to, I think, square that circle.

Professor Jeff Dudas (17:42)

But I think the. The downfall is not the decision to go off with. With Edie. The downfall is. Is his decision to not let Wayne grow.

Professor Stephen Dyson (17:51)

Okay.

Professor Jeff Dudas (17:51)

Go.

Professor Stephen Dyson (17:52)

Right.

Professor Jeff Dudas (17:52)

I mean, they're out. He's out. Right. The. The. Everything is arranged here. The disciplined choice is to get out, not to refuse human connection. The disciplined choice is to embrace human connection. And he makes the opposite choice.

Professor Stephen Dyson (18:09)

Okay, so let me try this on you then. I think the movie is telling us something important here, which is, were Neil to have left way and grown, maybe Neil doesn't understand this, but Neil would have left an element not of noble criminality, but of perhaps even supernatural sadism, maybe. Right. So. And so. So the. The. That world, Neil's world has thrown up. Neil disciplined, moral within the context of, you know, as an antibody to Waingro, who is chaotic, indisciplined serial killer. And the legit world is not capable of solving the Waingro problem. Right. They have no idea.

Professor Jeff Dudas (18:48)

Yeah.

Professor Stephen Dyson (18:49)

That he's. They're only starting to realize there's even a serial killer in their midst. And Vincent has no interest in it.

Professor Jeff Dudas (18:56)

Right.

Professor Stephen Dyson (18:56)

He spends zero time actually trying to solve that. His interest in Wayne will only be the extent that he can get the target that he's, you know, monotonously focused on, which is. Which is Neil. So Neil solves that problem. Neil rids the world of that evil. And I said to you offline that if you rewatch this movie in light of having recently watched Manhunter, you can see what I think are fairly deliberate references to Wayne Gro as a sort of Tooth Fairy esque character. He makes a similar pose to the one the Tooth Fairy makes when Graham shoots the Tooth Fairy. He has a winged beast of some kind or wings on his chest. The tattoo. And the last thing Neil says to him is, look at me. And looking and seeing was the whole Graham Tooth Fairy connection in Manhunter. And I think there's. I think man is telling us something here about the sort of nature of evil and how he wanted those movies perhaps to be or those parts of those movies to be read in parallel. So what Neil's done there is he hasn't made a selfish choice of I have to exact revenge. Maybe unwittingly, but in the mythology of the movie, what he's actually done is solved a problem that legitimate. That's a problem from his world that the legitimate world can't solve.

Professor Jeff Dudas (20:10)

Yeah, yeah.

Professor Stephen Dyson (20:10)

Which makes him a sort of more knowable character in the end.

Professor Jeff Dudas (20:13)

Yeah. I. I don't think there's any doubt about man's desire to portray both of these characters and. No. As noble in their own ways. And they're both sort of anti heroes. Yeah. In that way. Yeah. So bad day. Watch this.

Professor Stephen Dyson (20:30)

TikTok is full of funny pets and heart melting moments.

Professor Jeff Dudas (20:34)

Laugh more, stress less and share your own furry star. Download TikTok now. Your little one grew three inches overnight. Adorable. Also expensive. Sell their pint sized pieces on Depop and list them in minutes with no selling fees because somewhere a dad refuses to pay full price for the clothes his kids will outgrow tomorrow. And he's ready to buy your son's entire wardrobe right now. Consider your future growth Bird budget secured and start selling on Depop where taste recognizes taste. Payment processing fees and boosting fees still apply. See website for details.

Professor Stephen Dyson (21:14)

This episode is brought to you by State Farm. Listening to this podcast. Smart move. Being financially savvy. Smart move. Another smart move. Having State Farm help you create a competitive price when you choose to bundle home and auto bundling. Just another way to. To save with the personal price plan. Like a good neighbor. State Farm is there. Prices are based on rating plans that vary by state. Coverage options are selected by the customer. Availability, amount of discounts and savings and eligibility vary by state.

Professor Jeff Dudas (21:43)

Should we talk about collateral?

Professor Stephen Dyson (21:44)

Yes, collateral. Okay, so collateral is a collateral. Tom Cruise, Jamie. Jamie Foxx.

Professor Jeff Dudas (21:51)

Yeah.

Professor Stephen Dyson (21:51)

For me, a lot of this movie, I like this movie. I think it's. I think you might be a little higher on it than, than I am. To me it's. It's a tougher watch in the aftermath of Heat than it would be if he didn't exist. I do think there's. If Heat is for me a pinnacle point of man. And it takes some of the themes that in two of the movies I'd really like Thief and Manhunter and sort of, you know, takes them to a pinnacle point. Collateral is a little bit after the Lord Mayor's show, some of the same things are going on. You know, you've got a crafty criminal in Vincent. He's even called Sam. You know, it's a strange connection, but it's called Vincent. Like Al Pacino's character was Tom Cruise's character who goes around the place doing techniquey things, you know, and in service of a criminal enterprise. I suppose the new character is Jamie Foxx's kind of working man, taxi driver. I think that the degree to which. To which this movie works you, I, I think depends upon like how much are you gonna buy Tom Cruise's character, Maybe Cruise in that character or the degree to which that character is compelling at its height, you'd say, well, it's a. Or if you were to take the, you know, the upside here, you'd say it's a different character for Cruise to play. Yeah, right.

Professor Jeff Dudas (23:14)

No, I mean, I think Cruise is good in this movie. And I do think that Tom Cruise's more cartoonish elements in some of his roles over the years have obscured the fact that he is actually a capable thespian. And I think he's capable of portraying more range than he's. I would say, than he's given credit for. But I actually think it's because of a lot of his choices, his franchise choices and some of the. As he's aged in particular, some of the decisions that he's made about the roles that he's gonna invest himself in lend themselves to a more of a kind of cartoonish public image. So I think he's kind of responsible for some of this. But he has had some really superb, I think really superb performances as an actor. This is kind of in that register rather than in the kind of the action hero register, I think. And I do think there's some really effective scenes in this movie. Again in the dialogues between Max, our cabbie driver, and Vincent, our assassin, who in which Cruise does a really good job of conveying in just how broken and dysfunctional he is as a character, as a human being in ways that I think are sort of the best version of man's. Kind of. What I was talking about earlier is the elliptical information drop and the sort of character development. I think there's some really effective scenes and for the both of them. Right. Both the Max character and the Vincent character. I think we learn we get a really full bodied understanding of, of who these people are in this movie. I, I do think I kind of like. And maybe this is just the conceit of the structure, but I did like the kind of the five assassinations and the way that the movie had a kind of obvious and clear momentum and structure, the premise.

Professor Stephen Dyson (25:02)

So the negative way to say that would be the premise really dominates the movie. Yeah, right.

Professor Jeff Dudas (25:06)

Yes. If. Yes, I guess that could be a negative way to say it, but to me, the positive way, the positive of that is that it gives the movie a structure and a momentum and a clarity and a transparency that could potentially dissolve, you know, in other hands. Right. Or without that structure.

Professor Stephen Dyson (25:28)

And it's sort of a journey through the night, which is going to like, suit Michael Mann.

Professor Jeff Dudas (25:33)

Yeah.

Professor Stephen Dyson (25:33)

And an obvious, like, here are some tasks to perform and then the thing will be over.

Professor Jeff Dudas (25:38)

And I do think, and I think you may disagree with this a little bit, I do think that the Max character is a slightly different kind of character for a Michael Mann movie. Much more of the kind of the Everyman. I think he's much more relatable than most of the Michael Mann characters who, I mean, as you have said a couple of times in this series, tend to be archetypes rather than full bodied people. You could imagine running into somebody like Max and you could imagine that life.

Professor Stephen Dyson (26:07)

Right.

Professor Jeff Dudas (26:07)

A life of kind of frustrated ambitions. A perfectionist who, you know, is really afraid of failing. And is so afraid of failing, in fact, that he refuses to. To engage himself and his opportunities in ways that could lead him to his potential. And that what happens over the course of this story or of this movie is that meeting somebody like Vincent clarifies all of the kinds of insecurities and dysfunctions that Max has. And they eventually lead him to throw the caution to the wind here in a multitude of ways, which end up being. I think it's clear by the end of the movie we understand that this has been a transformational night for Max, and not just for the obvious kind of trauma reasons, but because it's the sort of circumstance that seems to have propelled him or forced him into engaging the world in a way that he was simply afraid to do so before. And I do think that's a different kind of character.

Professor Stephen Dyson (27:11)

Sure. So I don't dislike the character or the movie. To me, it is different in some ways. But there are also obvious continuations from the character of Frank Thief, who was also a working class person who also was thinking small and had his life kind of under control. And then he's kind of compelled, but actually with disastrous results to, to kind of think larger and also just down to even, even smaller things. Remember, Frank used to carry around like this montage of what his ideal life would be. And Max has this kind of picture of the island. So there's that kind of dreaming or envisioning kind of a life beyond yourself. I do think there's a clear philosophy in Collateral as well. I agree. I hadn't quite put it as succinctly as you. I thought about it as coherently as you that there's this kind of take your opportunities on or throw yourself into the world because it's the things are not just going to come into your door. You have to, you have to be agentic in your life. There's also a sort of broader philosophy of kind of disconnection and atomization. Like all of our societies are atomized. If you, if you're on the train six hours, no one will notice your day. But then the other things Vincent says about, you know, and Ally, by the

Professor Jeff Dudas (28:20)

way, is a great backdrop.

New Books Network Announcer (28:22)

Sure.

Professor Jeff Dudas (28:22)

For that point.

Professor Stephen Dyson (28:23)

Right, exactly. Exactly. You know, why do you care about this person I just killed? You don't know him. And you know, you also don't know anyone in Rwanda where there's a genocide and the world is sort of broadly indifferent to the fate of individual humans. So don't get so excited about stuff that the stuff that I'm doing, I'm just doing my job. Yeah. You know, so all that stuff I think is very compelling to me. You know, it's not only Cruise, it's not only that I didn't 100% buy cruise, you know, in that role in terms of the sort of broader performance stuff that were just some. Maybe this is just too shallow or simple minded of me. I kept getting thrown out of the movie by the kind of wiggy nature. Yeah. Like that hair looks ridiculous.

Professor Jeff Dudas (29:05)

I agree.

Professor Stephen Dyson (29:05)

Like no one has gray hair like that with perfectly symmetrical. Like that's just not how people. That's an obviously not be the way that. So maybe he's human hair craze. Exactly. So maybe he's wearing a disguise. And then I was like, that doesn't look like Tom Cruise's real stubble. And it's also perfectly salt and pepper in the way the hair is perfectly. So I don't know, like it's just a bit wiggy was my thought. And I kept thinking, I don't know, you look actually quite strange and I think you should probably try and. Or you should look strange in a different way. The other comparison that I kept thinking of was what's he called? Anton Chigurh. Is that the guy's name in no country for Old Men who has a similar.

Professor Jeff Dudas (29:46)

By the way, Javier Bardem is of course in this movie.

Professor Stephen Dyson (29:48)

Yes, of course, of course. But Chigurh has a similar sort of almost similar philosophy or a similar kind of role in the movie of just. And this is my business. But, but, but he's off kilda in a way that. That somehow draws you more into that world and. And his sort of indifference, if that's the comparison.

Professor Jeff Dudas (30:08)

No country versus of old for old men versus Collateral. It's a blowout.

Professor Stephen Dyson (30:12)

Okay. Okay.

Professor Jeff Dudas (30:13)

Not in favor of Collateral.

Professor Stephen Dyson (30:14)

Okay.

New Books Network Announcer (30:14)

Sorry.

Professor Stephen Dyson (30:15)

Yeah. So I think maybe we should do the. We should pick a winner here and then maybe take a short break and conclude, actually, our Michael Mann movie series and see if one of these movies is our overall winner and have some concluding reflections. But in terms just of the. The shootout. Heat versus Collateral. Where are you? Where are you coming?

Professor Jeff Dudas (30:31)

That's a close call. I. I mean, I know for you I can tell it's not, but for me, it's a close call. I would put it like this. I think Heat is likely a better movie, but I actually enjoyed watching Collateral more. Okay. And if I were going to return to a movie, it would be Collateral probably, and not Heat, but Premises, which

Professor Stephen Dyson (30:49)

is the best Michael man movie.

Professor Jeff Dudas (30:51)

Yeah.

Professor Stephen Dyson (30:52)

So you're.

Professor Jeff Dudas (30:53)

I mean, it's probably. I would. Again, I think it's a close call, but I would probably go with Heat.

Professor Stephen Dyson (30:57)

Okay. I would go with Heat pretty convincingly, as I. As, I think is no great surprise to you. So I think we're advancing Heat from this matchup. All right, so we're going to take a quick break here, and we will come back with our final results. And this has been the last in a series of knockout videos that we've done where we've paired Michael Mann movies one against the other. And we will talk about those movies that still remain and then rank them in our grand finale. So stay tuned. And we are back with the grand finale of our reconsideration of Michael Mann, what we've been calling the Michael Mann movie tournament. What you've just seen. The Heat vs. Collateral showdown was the last of a series of randomly determined paired matchups where we'd taken the eight highest rated Michael Mann movies and kind of picked a winner from each round. And now we're in the grand finale. So in episode one, we had Thief versus the Insider. And we, somewhat controversially, we were split on this, but we. We advanced Thief. In episode two, we had. Was it Ferrari versus Manhunter? So we had Ferrari versus Manhunter, and. And without much difficulty, we advanced Manhunter. In episode three, we had Ali versus Last of the Mohicans. Closed the call, but we advanced Last of the Mohicans, and we just advanced Heat versus Collateral. So Thief, Manhunter, Last of the Mohicans, Heat. Yeah, why don't we Try and determine a kind of four to one and see if we. Yeah. See if we're on the. On the same page. What are we putting in. In slot number four? What do you think the fourth best?

Professor Jeff Dudas (32:22)

Michael, man, I. I think it's probably Last of the Mohicans.

Professor Stephen Dyson (32:26)

Okay.

Professor Jeff Dudas (32:27)

For me.

Professor Stephen Dyson (32:28)

Okay.

Professor Jeff Dudas (32:28)

But it's closer than I would like.

Professor Stephen Dyson (32:31)

Okay. All right. So I. I think Less than Mohicans. Fairly clearly, you know, Less than Mohicans are sort of engaging historical epic. It's. I think we said it's major. Its major interest to us as we were considering Michael Mann movies. Reconsidering Michael Mann movies was just the degree to which it was a thematic and stylistic departure for him. But I think we were a little down on the degree to which it became a sort of romantic, windswept epic and some of the kind of craft elements were lost.

Professor Jeff Dudas (33:02)

Yeah. And I, for me, for my part in Last of the Mohicans, the thing that was disappointing for me was the sort of systematic departure from the source material in a way that was perhaps effective for a mainstream Hollywood movie, but quite disastrous for the kind of mythic power of the story in American culture.

Professor Stephen Dyson (33:23)

Okay. Okay. So in position number four, Last of the Mohicans, slot number three. Do you want me to give. Give my one. Okay.

Professor Jeff Dudas (33:31)

So.

Professor Stephen Dyson (33:31)

So my number three would be Thief. Michael Mann's, you know, first, first cinematic movie movie I really appreciate and I think has. Has grown in stature over. Over time, you know, establishes a genre defining aesthetic. Has, I think, a very strong and compelling, not only performance by James Caan, but a strong man character. You know, Frank, the kind of working class Thief. I appreciated the sort of no holds bad way that the narrative goes, which is in the end, Frank unable to escape the corruptions of all systems around him, the police system, the criminal system, and just the wider, you know, the social and political economy of the United States. Decides just to blow everything up and kind of walk away on his own. So he's uncompromising in the end. I know you hated the soundtrack. I thought was a great soundtrack, the Tangerine Dream soundtrack. So position number three for me.

Professor Jeff Dudas (34:31)

You liked Thief a lot more than I did, but I agree, it's number three.

Professor Stephen Dyson (34:34)

Okay. Okay. All right, good. So now I think things get difficult because Manhunter and Heath, we both really, really liked what are we gonna do here? So you should pick.

Professor Jeff Dudas (34:46)

My number two would be Heat.

Professor Stephen Dyson (34:48)

Okay.

Professor Jeff Dudas (34:49)

Which means my number one would be.

Professor Stephen Dyson (34:50)

Would be Manhunter. So do you want to explain why you've got him in. In that order?

Professor Jeff Dudas (34:54)

Yeah. So I think Heat is a very good movie, but I think that Manhunter, upon rewatching and reconsideration, I think it's both the best movie of the eight that we watched, and I think it's also the best. The most Michael Mann movie, so to speak, because it. To my mind, that movie, it pays off. And I think we talked about, or at least I had talked about this a little bit in our pod on Manhunter. It pays off all of Michael Mann's sort of stylistic aesthetic interests and not tricks, but tendencies or conventions that he engages. And it matches all of those things up perfectly with the story that he's telling. And I think it's a movie that, for me, is very lasting. It imprints itself on me in a way that I will remember and that I will return to and that I will think relatively deeply about moving forward. And so for those reasons, and. And as we talked about in the earlier, in the. The Heat vs. Collateral video, I think there's a lot of merit to Heat. I think it's. It's a. It's a strong accomplishment, but it. It doesn't hit me in the. The same ways that Manhunter does. And. And I can't. I don't see it as compulsively rewatchable. Okay, so that would be my sort of takeaway.

Professor Stephen Dyson (36:36)

All right, so two Heat one, Manhunter.

Professor Jeff Dudas (36:38)

Yeah.

Professor Stephen Dyson (36:39)

Okay, I am going to agree with you. And, you know, I think it is close. I think both movies are real achievements and really important movies. But right at the start of the series, I kept making a distinction in the introduction between. I said, we're trying to find the best Michael man movie or maybe the most Michael Mann movie. And these are two different concepts. And I think he does the most Michael Mann movie. Right. I think it's. It's. It's just. It's a lot of movie. It's kind of big. It's a pinnacle point for themes that he established in. In other movies. But I think maybe because of that, and although he keeps it really well under control, and I think it is. It is very coherent. I think Manhunter is. Is just a little. A little leaner and consequently a little more powerful. And so I think that falls into the category of best. So I think he does the most Michael Mann movie and the characteristic pinnacle of a lot of his themes. But Manhunter just, to me, has that extra twist, more interest, efficiency, leanness. I really like in Manhunter, the kind of things being right on the edge of the supernatural, I think is really Powerful to me that this is a movie that can sim. And I think movies should do this. We should really reward movies that do this, that they simultaneously exist in a naturalistic setting, metaphysical setting, but also clearly kind of draw into or draw upon another world that is more abstract, that is. That has hints of the dream, of the supernatural. I think that's why you would have a movie is to tap into and portray those elements of human existence.

Professor Jeff Dudas (38:17)

You're just sort of, as an audience member, you're on edge the entire time in a way that isn't necessarily uncomfortable or you're not dreading necessarily, but you're just sort of on edge. And maybe that's what it is because it's working our imaginations in ways that are just off kilter enough to get us engaged, but not so off kilter or so unreasonable that they get us doing things like wondering if Tom Cruise is wearing a wig, like in Collateral. Right. And so that is the kind of, like, there's an unsettling character is another way I think of saying it about Manhunter that really sticks the landing. And I do wonder. I think Manhunter has suffered from the Red Dragon movie, and not because Red Dragon is better, but because I think Red Dragon has kind of confused the legacy of Manhunter in a way that's. People don't think about Manhunter or they've sort of forgotten it. When they think about Hannibal Lecter and Hannibal Lecter's sort of first appearance, they think of the Red Dragon sort of retconning. Right. Of that character.

Professor Stephen Dyson (39:29)

And they're like, that's not Hannibal Lecter. I know anime. It's Sir Anthony Hopkins, Hannibal Lecter, you know, and I. That. That is interesting. And I think the, you know, he has some of those problems of the Sir Anthony Hopkins, you know, that, that. That thing of Pacino and De Niro so kind of dominates your thoughts when you, you know, and however good I think they both are in that, it's. It's, you know, it's just always in your back. Back your mind, like, is. Is there a few moments at which this is a star vehicle rather than a contained movie? Because William Peterson's performance as Will Graham has elements of late period Pacino. Right. There's times he goes to the top. Yeah, but. But in. In the setting, it never. It never quite becomes memeable.

Professor Jeff Dudas (40:12)

Yes.

Professor Stephen Dyson (40:13)

Because of, I think, the overall vibe of the. The movie.

Professor Jeff Dudas (40:16)

And here maybe it's the. It's the neon elements of it. Right. It's the kilter. And so that's why I would say to me, there is no distinction in. In this tournament between the best Michael man and the most Michael man. I. I think they're both Manhunter.

Professor Stephen Dyson (40:30)

Okay. Okay. Yeah. Where is that. That's. That's interesting. I do see a slight distinction. All right, good. Very, very worthwhile and interesting thing to do. A new new kind of farmer. First, let us know if you think we got. If you think we were right first about Heat versus Collateral, and then if you think we've got our. Our final four ranking. Right. Number four, Last of the Mohicans. Number three, Thief. Number two, he. And the best Michael Mann movie is Manhunter. Thank you for watching. And on that bombshell.