Reviews Apr 07 2008 @ 07:00 am
REVIEW: Miller’s Crossing
Directed By: Joel Coen and Ethan Coen
Written By: Joel Coen and Ethan Coen
Starring: Gabriel Byrne, Marcia Gay Harden, Albert Finney, John Turturro
Running Time: 115 minutes
Rated R for language and violence
Here’s the rumpus. I don’t want to like Miller’s Crossing. Every frame smacks of condescension, the events are drained of emotion, and it feels as if the Coens are giving everyone – their characters and their audience – the high hat. They’ve created a clinical labyrinth of twists and turns that lacks any kind of human element, and what’s worse you can practically see them looking down their ventilators at you from behind the film. But despite the fact that I know I’m being grifted like a schnook and that the Coens are chiselling me every step of the way, I just can’t get Miller’s Crossing out of my head.
Let me give you the angle. Gabriel Byrne plays Tom Reagan, an advisor to 1920’s era gangland king Leo O’Bannon (Albert Finney). He quickly finds himself on the outs with Leo when it comes to light that they’ve been seeing the same twist, Verna Bernbaum (Marcia Gay Harden, in her first feature length role). To complicate matters, there’s a gang war a-brewing with Johnny Casper (Jon Polito), and Tom finds himself smack dab in the middle, which may be exactly what he wants.
Leo (Albert Finney) making art with his Thompson.
The proceedings are classic gangster mixed with classic noir, the kind of genre-blended concoction that the Coens love to whip up. They’ve drawn liberally from the works of Dashiell Hammett, that literary purveyor of hardboiled pulp (most famous for creating Sam Spade and The Maltese Falcon, although the Coens are drawing here from two of his lesser known works, The Glass House and Red Harvest), and have even employed sections of dialog verbatim from his books. The result is impressive, although dispassionate. If one found Blood Simple to be elaborately constructed, then Miller’s Crossing is Blood Simple shoved through the mind of MC Escher on crack (it comes as no surprise then that while they were writing the screenplay they contracted a severe case of writer’s block, only alleviated once they broke for 3 weeks to bang out the script for Barton Fink). Managing to keep pace with the intricacies of the dense plotting is a feat only fully achieved upon repeat viewings.
The enigmatic fedora.
Which brings us to the potato eater and his insufferable hat. The quintessential image of the film is Tom Reagan’s fedora, sitting in the middle of a forest glade, picked up by the wind and whipped into the background like a tissue on the breeze. The hat is a recurring character in the film, lost early on in a gambling match, referenced by numerous characters, dreamt of, and shown in conspicuous close-ups, both by itself and malevolently perched on top of Tom’s glacial brow. Why is the hat important? What metaphor/allegory/symbol are they aiming for with it? Who knows, and I suspect the Coens have included it for ambiguity’s sake, rather than harboring any clear intention of it’s meaning. The anecdote goes that during principal photography Gabriel Byrne asked the brothers what the point of the hat was, and their response was to look at one another knowingly and shrug their shoulders with a wry twinkle in their eyes, leading Bryne to declare that he would never work with them again. Suffice to say, I sympathize with him.
The (arrogant) enigma of the fedora is perhaps a reference to the equally enigmatic character of Tom Reagan. Curses on the Coens for creating a character of such inexplicable motivation that I am equally infuriated and fascinated by him. He doesn’t even seem to know why he does what he does, making him that much more of an irresistible Sphinxian riddle. On the one hand, Tom is as apt a pupil as Machiavelli ever had, playing each faction off of one another like Duke Ellington playing a Baby Grand. On the other hand, he seems to perpetually have that deer-caught-in-the-headlights expression on his face, twising his way out of beatings, executions, and double crosses with inches to spare. This paradoxical balance between manipulation and victimization is what both drives the plot and keeps you analyzing the film long after it’s over. It’s never apparent how in control of the situation Tom is, and a convincing case could be made that he is either 1) a lucky opportunist who happens to make the most of serendipitous circumstances, or 2) a cunning puppeteer who knows exactly how things are going to end before they’ve even begun.
Tom Reagan (Gabriel Byrne), Mr. Machiavelli himself.
Nowhere is this more obvious than in his attitude towards Bernie Bernbaum (played with slimy finesse by John Turturro). Bernie serves as the catalyst for the ensuing gangwar, since Casper wants him dead and Leo wants him not-dead (he is, after all, Verna’s brother, whom Leo is dizzy for). He could either be the crucial pawn in Tom’s chess game or the unwitting recipient of his (apparent) schizophrenia. The film’s brilliance (which I begrudgingly acknowledge) lies in the fact that it could be both or it could be neither.
If the Coens know whether or not Tom has a heart, they’re not telling, and Gabriel Byrne is certainly clueless. That leaves us, the dumbfounded audience, to determine for ourselves which it is. It is a passionless endeavor, as the Coens seem to care less about their characters than about the meat grinder they get to run them through, but it is a fascinating one nonetheless. Try as I might, I just can’t stop chewing over Miller’s Crossing.
Thanks to “You Know, For Kids!” for supplying the glossary of gangster’s terms employed in Miller’s Crossing
on Apr 07 2008 @ 1:04 pm 1. kristena said …
When the Coens are serious, they make me deeply uncomfortable. Add an overdose of pretension to that, and I’m done.
Honestly, we could sit all day and discuss what that blessed hat means, but I feel like the Coens would snicker behind our backs if they knew. And that’s just irritating.
on Apr 07 2008 @ 1:10 pm 2. Chuck said …
Wonderful work here, though I didn’t quite see the film as you did Evan. I feel that the answer of Tom’s intentions is mysterious even to Tom himself (which you say) and that is, really, enough for me. Tom is a purposeful cipher, who may do things if for nothing else than to see if said things will raise his pulse a notch. He screws his boss’s woman, then tells him. He goes back and forth amongst Casper and Leo’s gangs, he spares Bernie, and he wouldn’t be able to tell you why he did any of those things (though there’s, the girl be damned, an honor about him). That is the meaning of the oft mentioned hat: the elusive something that never comes into focus. I found the film to have a heart, and to be extremely moving.
on Apr 07 2008 @ 1:25 pm 3. Evan Derrick said …
You know, Chuck, I’ve been reading a lot of other people’s thoughts on the film and they are saying much the same, that it did move them deeply. I’m not one to die on the beachhead I’ve staked my opinions on, so perhaps Crossing deserves a second look down the road. The chance to sort through some of the dense material again would be welcomed, at the very least (I’m still trying to figure out who knocked off the guy with the toupee at the beginning…any thoughts out there?).
I think you’re right about the hat – it represents the fickle uncertainty of Tom’s character which, in a way, is almost the same thing as saying it exists for ambiguity’s sake.
Thanks for your thoughts!
on Apr 07 2008 @ 2:33 pm 4. kristena said …
I think Tom has a deep love for Leo that controls him in a bizarre way.
At the same time, there’s something very existential about him. Very much like Albert Camus’ The Stranger (L’homme Absurde). He just does whatever strikes him in the moment. Which is kind of what Chuck is saying.
Is it possible for him to be both controlled by his feelings and disconnected by them at the same time?
on Apr 07 2008 @ 2:42 pm 5. Thrifting and the Coens | thimbly things said …
[...] notice similar themes, camera angles, and even a splash of their Coen humor. But when we got to Miller’s Crossing and Barton Fink, I was pretty disappointed. But like I said, maybe if I watch them [...]
on Apr 07 2008 @ 4:20 pm 6. Phillip Johnston said …
I believe this is my favorite gangster film. I love the lazy pace, the recurring visual themes, Carter Burwell’s score … it all meshes together so nicely. Indeed, it is a hard film to analyze. The Coens know that, though. I love that last shot of Gabriel Byrne by the tree. It’s almost like he’s telling us that we’ll never get inside his head. We’ll never understand him because he doesn’t quite understand himself.
on Apr 07 2008 @ 9:00 pm 7. Coosa Creek Times, 4-7-2008 | Coosa Creek Mambo said …
[...] I couldn’t agree more. (this just in … another Coen review, this time of Miller’s Crossing, which I think is right up there with Goodfellas, here). [...]
on Apr 30 2008 @ 11:55 am 8. HallsyHatesU said …
Personally, I think Miller’s Crossing is one of the funniest movies the Coens have done; the humour just is not as obvious. The dialog is incredible. I have so many favourite lines but if I had to choose I would say: “I told him you’re a tramp and he dump ya.”
I love the scene where Tom beans the hood with a chair, prompting the little old guy to come in and kick his ass. Every scene with Jon Polito is gold, too.
I don’t think the hat was a major theme in the story. I think you might be trying to overanalyze a little bit. The hat is just a hat. Watch the scene again where Marcia Gay Harden jumps to conclusions about the dream – “No I didn’t chase after it. There’s nothing more foolish than a man chasing after a hat.” Or something like that.
The music is really top-notch. In particular, the scene where they shoot up Leo’s bedroom and the scene where they take Tom out to Miller’s Crossing.
Minor spoiler:
Rug (the guy with the toupee) was killed by Mink (Steve Buscemi). I think that was explained pretty explicitly in the film. It can certainly be confusing on the first viewing, though.
on Apr 30 2008 @ 12:01 pm 9. Evan Derrick said …
Glad to have your voice at MZ, Hallsy.
One of the Coens greatest strengths is their ability to straddle the fence when it comes to tone and mood. Some see nihilism, some see humor. I saw ambiguous symbolism, you saw a simple hat. More than any other filmmaker working today, multiple interpretations of their work seem equally valid.
Agreed with you on the music. Carter Burwell and the Coens mix like Kahlua and milk – perfectly.
Great comments. Hope you drop your two cents in the hat more often.
on Sep 22 2008 @ 2:45 am 10. Seamus said …
Hey guys. I just saw ‘Miller’s Crossing’ and was so intrigued by the elusive metaphor of the hat, which to me is clearly intentional and significant, that I googled ‘hat metaphor’! Interesting to hear others’ thoughts, but here’s my take. the film starts with Jasper’s explanation of the importance of ethics. Like many works of art, the opening gives a frame of reference through which the rest of the film can be understood: the striving for (or disregard of) a set of ethics is the most crucial factor in the characterisation of all the characters, but especially Regan. So I took the hat to be a symbol of integrity. To give someone the high hat is to be disrespectful; when Regan comes close to killing Bernie at Miller’s Crossing he almost loses his hat; when he has first cheated with Verna and betrayed Leo he lost his hat temorarily; and in the film’ conclusion, when Regan opts to part ways with Leo, Regan magnificently lowers his hat and covers his brimming eyes, hinting at his strength of will in maintaining this integrity in the face of deep personal pain. So to me the hat was a metaphor for the different forms of integrity and different codes of ethics that different characters displayed.
on Sep 22 2008 @ 10:26 am 11. Evan Derrick said …
Thanks for visiting, Seamus. That’s actually a great observation on the hat – it might be the best one that I’ve heard so far, and certainly more interesting than my assertion that it was included for “ambiguity’s sake.” It definitely works in the context of Reagan’s character.
Hmmmm. I’ll have to think on that a bit more.
on Sep 05 2009 @ 10:10 pm 12. toeffurr said …
“There isn’t any symbolism. The sea is the sea. The old man is an old man. The boy is a boy and the fish is a fish. The shark are all sharks no better and no worse. All the symbolism that people say is shit. What goes beyond is what you see beyond when you know.” Ernest Hemingway.
I really believe the Coen’s put things like the hat, the rug, the wallpaper etc in movies so they can sit back and watch people make things more than they are. It’s the man on the grassy gnoll and the lunar landing…we just want there to be more to it than what appears to be.
It’s a hat.
on Jan 01 2010 @ 3:39 am 13. ItsaIrishthang said …
Sigmund Freud had trouble understanding the Irish, because of the way they express their humanity, and so do the Coens, but they have figured out some of it.
You hide your emotions (under your hat) and everytime Tom loses his (cool and emotional control) it, the hat flies off. Slick, but they still will have issues with loyalty, which the Celtic people have plenty and how they express it and their deep emotions.
Tom knows Verna, and he knows Leo, he want’s them both in a way and without hurting either one of them, and that is his game. Yet he knows Verna is “damaged goods” and her loyalty is to her brother and he knows Leo’s loyalty to Verna and so he knows what he must do to protect his old friend Leo. Give up the girl and put himself in danger to protect him.
All of the characters are ethical to a degree with different levels of loyalty. Yet in the end, Tom is the one with the most heart by ending his friendship with Leo for the sake of all envolved.
A great complex film and the concept of loyalty and love in human relationships. The film is also to me about Tom, who moves from logic to his ability to rely on his “gut” for the best solution to a problem, that is Celtic all the way.
Ah Freud, you will never figure us out.
on Jan 28 2010 @ 10:43 am 14. kinn said …
The Coens very much know that Tom has a heart, and they show us with that hat. Tom loves Leo but can’t tell him. Tom feels wronged by him at the beginning of the film and does everything he can throughout the film to set it up so that Leo will see how much he missed Tom, needed him. Yet at the end, Leo goes away with another, and Tom yanks that hat down firmly. His dream of losing his hat was his fear of actually baring his heart to Leo (and the world). As tough as Tom is, he’s a scared man inside.
It’s a beautiful film.
on Mar 22 2010 @ 4:39 pm 15. Endless Mike said …
Just finished watching the movie, and am intrigued about the hat– I may not have counted right, but it seems that everyone who dies loses their hat(the toupee guy, the Dane, Casper and Bernie).
To me the hat seems to signify deception/concealment — of weakness, of the truth, emotions etc. Each character has a weakness which they need protect, and which draws them into the convoluted story as other characters try to exploit them. Leo protects Verna, Verna protects Bernie, Bernie protects his income, Casper his “ethics” (?), and Tom, well… Leo? Gambling? this is ambiguous.
Either way, I think ambiguity is a major theme of the movie, as fits the “hat” motif and the noir genre as a whole. As one of the characters remarks “whats black becomes white and white white becomes black”. Also, did anyone else think of “Chinatown” when you see the Chinese characters on a sign outside of Casper’s house? Fun stuff
on Jan 28 2011 @ 10:27 pm 16. Clint said …
I’m years late to this discussion , and this will probably never be read, but I can’t help it.
The hat is a symbol of manhood. Men all wore hats in those days, back in the 20s and 30s, and in the gangster subculture of the movie, a subculture that is all about proving one’s toughness and manhood, through violence and twisted conceptions of honor (see Johnny Caspar’s absurd speech about ethics at the very opening of the movie). Men don’t wear hats in our softer era.
Tom has a nightmare about losing his hat (his manhood), a fear of failure.
When Leo beats him up, his hat flies off and someone picks it up and hands it to him (the old cliche “having your hat handed to you” means being beat up, IE being “outmanned” by a tougher man).
Johnny accuses Leo of giving him the high hat – IE, acting like a bigger man than Leo.
The guy Verna shoots has his toupee (his “hat”) pulled off by a little boy.
The big tough guy Drop Johnson is too big and tough to have the tiny hat in his apartment, which actually belongs to scrawny Mink.
The homosexual, captured and defeated (IE, unmanly) Bernie is taken out to Miller’s Crossing by Tom and the two henchmen to be killed. He begs for his life, for which he later confesses to feeling unmanly (”I guess I made kind of a fool of myself out there, bawling away like a twist”). He is not wearing a hat, while the 3 others are.
At the end, Tom has won by engineering the deaths of all his enemies, and he confidently and ostentatiously pulls his hat down very firmly and securely over his head.
on Feb 02 2011 @ 11:26 am 17. Top 10 Coen Brothers Movies | chimesfreedom said …
[...] the film is well-regarded, it was a box office dud when released. And what is the meaning of the hats? Is the hat some sort of MacGuffin? Worth repeated viewings. Famous Quote: “What is this, the [...]
on Jul 02 2011 @ 6:32 am 18. Miller’s Crossing (1990) | Old Old Films said …
[...] moviezeal.com [...]
on Jul 28 2011 @ 7:18 pm 19. Pirate said …
In my opinion, this is a nearly perfect film. I have watched it many times because I kept discovering nuances to the dialogue, performances and even the plot that I had overlooked in prior viewings. Still, my favorite aspect of the film is the Tom Reagan’s effort to adhere to his own code.
Like other commenters, I feel that Tom’s hat is symbolic. Although interpreting what is means may be difficult, I do not think it is a riddle without an answer. I doubt that the Coehn’s would carefully craft such an amazing work of art around such a focal point simply to confuse.
The movie is primarily about ethics and character. Indeed, as a previous person has observed, even before the opening credits role we hear a lengthy monologue concerning ethics. Viewing the film through this lens, it seems to me, makes it far clearer.
As we all know, before the timeline of the movie itself begins, Leo is smitten with Verna and Verna is using Leo to protect her brother, Bernie. Tom and Leo are fellow Irishman and Tom has been loyal to him for many years, even when their future was unsure (”We’ve faced worse odds, Tom.” “Never without reason. It helps to have one [Leo].”)
However, Tom is guilty of having fallen for Verna. In the ladies room, while drunk, he tells her, “I love you, Angel.” She is his equal in terms of intelligence, wit and a cold hard ability to see all of the angles and make her play. Certainly, for the Tom of the fictional 1930’s, she must be like no other woman with whom he has been romantically involved.
Tom sleeps with Verna twice while she is seeing Leo — but only when his inhibitions are down because he is drunk. As anyone who is a heavy drinker knows, these are the times when you chase after your desires even if your better judgment would otherwise prevent you from doing so.
For just a couple days in the movie, Tom attempts to balance the conflict he is experiencing: his desire to be with Verna and his loyalty to Leo. Unfortunately, as is common when people caught in a love triangle, that cannot last.
This brings me to my favorite question: What is the meaning of Tom’s hat? Perhaps the answer can be found in the one time Tom discusses it. He admits that, after having had sex with Verna, he has just dreamed of his hat. Verna cuts in, asking — actually telling — Tom that, in his dream, he chased his hat, caught it, and that it then turned into “something wonderful.”
Verna is telling Tom that he has to chase after what he wants and grab onto it in order for it to turn into something more. In truth, she is telling Tom to chase after her and, if he does, their relationship will turn into “something wonderful.” But if this is the case, why doesn’t Tom simply agree?
I suspect it is because Tom is too proud to do so. He responds with words to the effect of, “No, I didn’t chase it and it didn’t turn into anything. There is nothing more embarrassing than a man chasing after his own hat.” I believe that Tom is lying and Verna was right about his dream — this is why he responds so harshly. But regardless of whether Tom is telling the truth, I think he has just told the audience why he will not chase after Verna: being a proud man of the 1930s, he feels it is foolish for a man to chase after a woman (perhaps all the more so because Verna is a “tramp” and a “grifter”).
I could be reading too much into that exchange but consider this: Verna also tells Tom, in another scene, “Why do you always take the long way around — why didn’t you just ask for what you want?” Tom inquires, “What did I want?” and Verna responds, “Me.” Tom does not deny this fact.
Moreover, despite his unflagging loyalty to Leo, the one thing Tom will not do is apologize for his relationship with Verna. When Leo tells Tom, in the last 10 minutes of the film, “Jesus, Tom, I forgive you,” Tom angrily retorts, “I didn’t ask for that and I don’t want it!” Tom cares for Verna and he will not apologize for his feelings. And he probably can reconcile his sleeping with her, despite Leo’s affection for her, because she has admitted to Tom (in the ladies room scene) that she is merely using Leo (Tom says, “There is a name for that kind of arrangement, [Verna].”)
So back to Tom’s hat: over the course of the film, Tom nearly loses his hat but never does. In the closing shot of the movie, Tom is seen with just has hat — looking out coldly at the world. Why?
I think the answer lies in another statement made by Verna. She tells Tom, “Admit that you have a heart, even though it might be small and feeble and you can’t remember the last time you used it.” Again, Tom doesn’t deny this — and he next sleeps with Verna for the second time.
Isn’t is strange that there is so much talk of Tom’s heart despite the fact that “he takes such pride in being a son of a bitch”? Indeed, Bernie convinces Tom not to kill him at Miller’s Crossing by crying, “We don’t bump guys! Look in your heart, Tom! Look into your heart!” It would seem that Tom does find something in his heart given that he lets Bernie go free.
At the film’s climax, Tom abandons his heart (i.e. he will not chase after his hat). In far, Tom creates a second chance to kill Bernie himself. When Bernie makes exactly the same plea that worked on Tom the last time, Tom kills him without hesitation — after saying he has no heart (Tom: “What heart?!”). Of course, Tom must know that in addition to becoming a cold blooded murdered, he also is giving-up any chance he has with Verna by doing this.
As the credits role, I believe that Tom has shown himself to be a man who held true to his ethics and paid a terrible price for it. He slept with the object of his friend and father-figure’s affections. But he admitted it. And, having made that mistake, he risked his own life to protect that man’s standing. He does this despite Leo’s having physically beaten him and all but threatened his life (Henchman to Tom: “Leo says if you end up on the wrong side, you take your chances like anybody else”).
Having done right by Leo, Tom still will not chase his hat. If Verna had chosen Tom over Leo, I suspect Tom would have tried to have had a relationship with her. Still, even though Verna does not know Tom fired the shots that killed Bernie (although she realizes he definitely had a hand it), Verna does not choose Tom. And so, heartless, Tom puts on his hat and ends up with nothing.
I admire Tom for his fierce loyalty to his code of ethics. Although he is incredibly flawed, he held true to his fealty to Leo. His life may have been far easier if he abandoned Leo or secretly betrayed him so that he could have Verna to himself. But he knowingly chose not to chase his own hat — he chose to give up on having “something wonderful” — rather than betray his friend for a woman.
on Dec 20 2011 @ 1:28 pm 20. Butch said …
I agree with your overview of the movie. And yes the movie is about Hats. In the 1920’s Hats where a huge part of business and everyday clothing. The Coen brothers once asked what is the movie about to them, they simply answered, “its about Hats”. So hats and we’ve noticed alot about them during the movie. The Hat, just look at every scene when he’s wearing it, it tells you just what he’s thinking every time.