If Spike Lee had been born Italian, in a New Jersey family, his first film would have been "This Thing of Ours." Of course, it goes without saying that Spike probably wouldn't have survived producing such an effort while also dealing with a 40+ count Federal Indictment. I've seen a bit written by armchair pundits who simply don't understand film, but want to take shots at "This Thing of Ours." In all the supposed "critiques" they offer there isn't a grain of true intellectualism, much less informed opinion.
Film and literature are limited to describing a few key life conflicts. In Danny Provenzano's film "This Thing of Ours", the conflict begins as a typical story of man vs. man. But, instead, as it progresses, as the character development proceeds, we see that the film is actually a more moral driven story of a series of man vs. himself conflicts. The final conflict faced by Danny Provenzano in the lead role, is the most piquant of those internal conflicts. It is also a moral tale, lamenting that any of us may lose what we most value, the love of friends and family, in the pursuit of goals we have already committed ourselves to. Loyalty and this love are critical driving forces for Provenzano's tale.
A secondary theme of what happens to, or is deserved by those who betray their friends, consistently recurs throughout the film. One might think that Danny himself crosses that line in the anti-climax, where as a 'made man' he is forced to choose between love of friends, and his own future. But life doesn't give one the chance to go back and rewrite its script so that Danny's character can avoid such a choice. Life is real, ugly, and often brutal. The ethical choices we each make to survive define us, but just as certainly, they separate us from lower life forms like rats.
To begin with a more formal academic critique, "This Thing of Ours" combines elements of both cinema verité and film noir. One gets a feel that one has been dropped into the reality of a NJ crime family, but unlike The Sopranos, time is not expended on "explaining" the incipient milieu to the viewer. Instead, like a Spike Lee film, one either : understands the milieu, embraces it, and immerses themselves within it, or they simply don't get the film.
Some have been extremely petulant about the tendency of the film to move back and forth between broad general action and specific individualist elements. But serious students of film will notice the skilled use of a Diltheyistic approach, one that depends upon Dilthey's "Hermeneutic Circle." In other words, the movement takes the viewer back and forth between the implicit and explicit, as well as between the particular and the whole. Only through weaving across both, can a viewer suddenly immersed in a new and unfamiliar environment begin to develop a Weltanschauung (or World View) appropriate to the new setting. "This Thing of Ours" succeeds in giving attentive and/or critical viewers that opportunity. But, this choice is inherently risky. Just as many viewers simply "didn't get" Spike Lee's early efforts, many, including many who should get "This Thing of Ours," simply complain about the film. Sadly, they are displaying their own lack of experience and comprehension for the medium of film they seek to critique.
Yes, the portrayal of the FBI as wholly and completely inept is a bit absurd, and perhaps the film's weakest element. But the human tendency is to dehumanize and marginalize one's foes. Not coincidentally, with Provenzano during filming, underneath FBI driven investigation and indictments, it is not in the least bit surprising that he would use film to lampoon them. Need I remind anyone that while the Bush White House portrayed Saddam Hussein's Iraq as completely incompetent, they also claimed Iraq had highly advanced nuclear and chemical weapons programs in operation? One isn't about to make one's mortal enemies look attractive or competent. In the anti-hero tale, that is "This Thing of Ours" the bumbling FBI is an appropriate foil; as much so as were the bumbling agents of the church faced by the Three Musketeers. Finally, something needs to be said about the skillful use of cinematography in creating the proper atmosphere and feel for the recounting of Provenzano's tale. While there were no iconic Citizen Kane moments, there is a darkness, and reality-inspired Kubrick-like seediness throughout. Beneath all the glamour and glitz, the decay and moral rot is always apparent. When one directs themselves, as Orson Welles did in "Citizen Kane" some kudos should go to the director of photography, in this instance George Mitas, as they bear a greater portion of the creative role than in many other projects. Mitas' choice of shots and on-screen viewpoint, places us where we need to be: wholly within the world of this film.
In conclusion, one will get "This Thing of Ours" if they have the intellect to expend on entering Danny Provenzano's cinematic world. Spike Lee's earliest efforts were panned by many on the very same grounds I've heard "This Thing of Ours" critiqued. Mr Provenzano should be nothing but flattered by such criticism.
Film and literature are limited to describing a few key life conflicts. In Danny Provenzano's film "This Thing of Ours", the conflict begins as a typical story of man vs. man. But, instead, as it progresses, as the character development proceeds, we see that the film is actually a more moral driven story of a series of man vs. himself conflicts. The final conflict faced by Danny Provenzano in the lead role, is the most piquant of those internal conflicts. It is also a moral tale, lamenting that any of us may lose what we most value, the love of friends and family, in the pursuit of goals we have already committed ourselves to. Loyalty and this love are critical driving forces for Provenzano's tale.
A secondary theme of what happens to, or is deserved by those who betray their friends, consistently recurs throughout the film. One might think that Danny himself crosses that line in the anti-climax, where as a 'made man' he is forced to choose between love of friends, and his own future. But life doesn't give one the chance to go back and rewrite its script so that Danny's character can avoid such a choice. Life is real, ugly, and often brutal. The ethical choices we each make to survive define us, but just as certainly, they separate us from lower life forms like rats.
To begin with a more formal academic critique, "This Thing of Ours" combines elements of both cinema verité and film noir. One gets a feel that one has been dropped into the reality of a NJ crime family, but unlike The Sopranos, time is not expended on "explaining" the incipient milieu to the viewer. Instead, like a Spike Lee film, one either : understands the milieu, embraces it, and immerses themselves within it, or they simply don't get the film.
Some have been extremely petulant about the tendency of the film to move back and forth between broad general action and specific individualist elements. But serious students of film will notice the skilled use of a Diltheyistic approach, one that depends upon Dilthey's "Hermeneutic Circle." In other words, the movement takes the viewer back and forth between the implicit and explicit, as well as between the particular and the whole. Only through weaving across both, can a viewer suddenly immersed in a new and unfamiliar environment begin to develop a Weltanschauung (or World View) appropriate to the new setting. "This Thing of Ours" succeeds in giving attentive and/or critical viewers that opportunity. But, this choice is inherently risky. Just as many viewers simply "didn't get" Spike Lee's early efforts, many, including many who should get "This Thing of Ours," simply complain about the film. Sadly, they are displaying their own lack of experience and comprehension for the medium of film they seek to critique.
Yes, the portrayal of the FBI as wholly and completely inept is a bit absurd, and perhaps the film's weakest element. But the human tendency is to dehumanize and marginalize one's foes. Not coincidentally, with Provenzano during filming, underneath FBI driven investigation and indictments, it is not in the least bit surprising that he would use film to lampoon them. Need I remind anyone that while the Bush White House portrayed Saddam Hussein's Iraq as completely incompetent, they also claimed Iraq had highly advanced nuclear and chemical weapons programs in operation? One isn't about to make one's mortal enemies look attractive or competent. In the anti-hero tale, that is "This Thing of Ours" the bumbling FBI is an appropriate foil; as much so as were the bumbling agents of the church faced by the Three Musketeers. Finally, something needs to be said about the skillful use of cinematography in creating the proper atmosphere and feel for the recounting of Provenzano's tale. While there were no iconic Citizen Kane moments, there is a darkness, and reality-inspired Kubrick-like seediness throughout. Beneath all the glamour and glitz, the decay and moral rot is always apparent. When one directs themselves, as Orson Welles did in "Citizen Kane" some kudos should go to the director of photography, in this instance George Mitas, as they bear a greater portion of the creative role than in many other projects. Mitas' choice of shots and on-screen viewpoint, places us where we need to be: wholly within the world of this film.
In conclusion, one will get "This Thing of Ours" if they have the intellect to expend on entering Danny Provenzano's cinematic world. Spike Lee's earliest efforts were panned by many on the very same grounds I've heard "This Thing of Ours" critiqued. Mr Provenzano should be nothing but flattered by such criticism.