L.A. Confidential

When I was listing “gritty cop movies” that I liked in my discussion of the worthless “Brooklyn’s Finest,” I mentioned “L.A. Confidential.” I remember seeing it when it came out (it was released in 1997), and remembered it being a good movie. And recently, I had the chance to watch it again, and was reminded that it absolutely is a fantastic movie. I am very glad that I have revisited it.

What’s the Deal: It’s 1950’s Los Angeles. After a Christmas-night beating of innocent “Mexicans” by decorated L.A. police officers, some of the officers present refuse to “snitch” on the officers who actually took part in the incident. (Russell Crowe) Others readily do so, knowing they will be hated by the rest of the department (Guy Pearce). After another former officer is gunned down in the middle of the night, several officers break out on their own to solve the crime. An additional piece of the story is the tabloid publisher (Danny DeVito) feeding leads on crimes to Detective Vincennes (Kevin Spacey), who is more interested in high-profile arrests that make the newspapers than actual police work. Finally, there is the ring of high-dollar prostitutes who have had plastic surgery to be made to look like famous movie stars of the time (Kim Basinger).  Basinger gets the lion's share of the movie's poster, I suppose because she was the biggest star of the bunch in 1997.  But the majority of the screen time is Pearce's. 

Admittedly, this is a whole lot to follow. “L.A. Confidential” was a novel first, and that is obvious through the numerous, interwoven subplots. There is a lot going on here, almost too much for a 2 hour and 15 minute movie. I haven’t read the book, but have a hunch that the novel would be slightly easier to follow. However, a focused viewing of L.A. Confidential is very rewarding.

Things I Like:

1. The cinematography / setting. The movie is set in 1950’s Los Angeles, and it feels like 1950’s Los Angeles. The costumes, cars, backgrounds, lighting…all serve to set the mood of the time and place. (after some research, it turns out this cinematographer also did “The Last of the Mohicans” and “Heat,” movies that also look great).

2. The way it all fits together. As I mentioned above, there is a lot going on, but if the viewer has followed it all the way through then he is rewarded with a lot of suspense and a really great conclusion.

3. The “grit.” The officers in the movie are really rough around the edges and the story confronts controversial issues, such as beating confessions out of people, planting evidence, manipulating others for one’s own political gain, “snitching,” racial profiling, racial slurs (it was, after all, the 50’s), domestic violence, and police corruption. But this all makes the story really, really compelling.

Things I didn’t like:

1. The pacing. In an effort to fit it so many sub-plots, there are important parts of the movie that have to be handled in a quick manner. This is generally not a problem, as long as the viewer hasn’t taken a bathroom break or anything. If you do that, you just might never recover.