JCC Who Stole The Scene? Heat: Pacino vs De Niro

De Niro controls every scene he is in, in everything he is in.

It's actually kind of annoying how good he is.

Pacino is a firework. You know when he goes off, it will be spectacular.

But in the case of Heat, Pacino sparkles, but as he fades, the true star still shines brightly above.

De Niro wins.

 

In the context of the movie, I'm going to say Pacino.

Prior to this scene, you felt as if McCauley was untouchable. That, and we already knew who McCauley was at that point. He plays this scene exactly how you would expect him to, and doesn't do anything differently from any scene prior to it.

Hanna, on the other hand, had finally caught up to McCauley. This was the first time we saw the more subdued Hanna match wits with his adversary. And it was Hanna who had McCauley backed into a corner, forcing McCauley to reply to his persistent questioning. Hanna elicits all the little subtle responses from McCauley. Hanna controls the conversation and is the one who really drives this scene.

 

This is also the case in Insomnia, in my opinion, though that is a more subdued performance overall. There's a moment when Pacino's character, Dormer, loses his temper in the interrogation room and does the typical Pacino explosion and he storms out. But Nolan hangs the camera on him just a beat longer, until he gets around the corner and you see the anger leave his face and he becomes more harried and worried. You realize that the explosion was a fake. He did it to have an excuse to leave because he's just realized that he has to go deal with a piece of incriminating evidence before the other cops can find it.

 

Well this is the writing and direction at work. That is the intention of the scene. You are correct.

The question is...is the scene stolen?

Stealing a scene, at least to my understanding, suggests that an actor has resonated with an audience beyond what the dialog/scene/script/play/film intended. You walk away talking about an actor, not a plot point or a climax or a setting.

Too me, that scene, which was what the whole point of the movie was to get to...the 2 greats in the frame together. Script aside, it is a duel in half-truths and the watch for tells that drives the scene. Will someone crack and this turn into a shootout? Tension is the goal. Pacino jabs, and De Niro dodges. So the question isn't which character was set up to drive the scene. The question is "which actor do you applaud as the scene ends"?

Pacino's character is about to gain the upper hand. It is written.

De Niro keeps you on side with him, even knowing that.

In a movie that plays the game of ambiguity in a classic cops and robbers tale, no one is telling you who you should be rooting for. It is the charisma of the actors, and really personal preference, that decides who you root for in the end.

For me, that scene is where Hanna challenges McCauley to lose his cool...to crack. Pacino is fantastic in his relentlessness.

De Niro deflects it all, with that 1/4 grin and earnest eyes.

The scene was suppose to be the moment everything catches up with McCauley. De Niro makes you think he can still get away.

 

Well, Hi there! apart from the gun battle in the middle this is a bore-fest.

 

It is a slow burn, no doubt.

Not the high point of anyone's careers. But it was a nice ensemble and decent enough final product.

I'd give it a "B+".

 

Heat is such a terrific movie and that is a classic scene. I've always felt it was a draw; they are both such amazing actors.

 

I actually watched it last night. It's good, it's tight, the cast is even deeper than I remembered, there's a ton of character work, and it looks a lot better than I remembered (haven't seen it since CRTV), but the way people talk about it makes me feel like it's overrated.

 

I almost feel like Heat is underrated.
In some circles perhaps?

Not many people I know ever talk about it and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them had never seen it at all.

What I'm saying is I don't hear it brought up IRL ever except online in movie buff circles.

 

The scene naturally favors Pacino, who is in the driver’s seat of the conversation and has more dynamic material, while De Niro is mostly called upon to play impassive. You could call it a win for De Niro that he doesn’t get lost opposite Pacino’s control of the conversation. But I still give this one to Pacino, if nothing else for the little smirk he gives after De Niro’s “barbecues and ballgames” crack. He knows a regular life is bull**** too; he lives for this just as much as the crooks do, and he would be disappointed if De Niro actually fell for his patter. Pacino injects more of these little touches of action and reaction into the scene, while De Niro is content to sit back and restrain himself to the occasional grimace. He does it because he’s uncomfortable at being cornered and trying not to give anything away, but it lets Pacino have the scene.

 

The entire part of me wants him to get away. It's very typical/intentional for the audience to want these characters to realize what they have, what they've gotten away with, and get out while they still can. De Niro had Amy Brenneman on the way to the airport and blows it to kill a scumbag like Waingro. These characters just can't let it go, though. There's a ton of nuance in it in that De Niro spends the whole movie talking about not getting attached and walking away, and in the end, he can't walk away from revenge, but he can walk away from the woman even though he just told her it would be pointless to go anywhere without her.

There's a ton of ambiguity/nuance in the movie that is reminiscent of noir films. Pacino cares about Natalie Portman and hates her biological father for not spending any time with her, but he's on wife #3, doesn't spend any time with his current wife, and really, if Pacino had a biological daughter, he probably wouldn't spend any time with her, either. Pacino clearly has no business having any familial attachments, as he can't commit to any of them.

Sizemore is shown to dote on his daughters, but in the end he picks up a little girl and uses her as a human shield (wtf). De Niro gets enraged at Waingro killing the armored truck guard, and says everything he can to avoid killing anyone in the bank, but during his escape he fires into a crowd of bystanders outside a grocery store while Pacino tries to get them to get down. Kilmer is attached to his wife and kid, he bails on the plan in order to go back for them (which De Niro obviously sees as a mistake, despite having Amy Brenneman in the car with him), and his cheating wife saves him from the cops.

Two of the three main women in the movie cheat on their men. The other is innocent and idealized. It's very noirish.

 

Rewatched Heat last night and it really holds up overall. Agreed it is very noirish and a slow burn at times and in spite of a few lines of dialogue that are a bit eye rolling, most notably during the relationship plot bits after mid way, some line about detritus at one point, the film is really one of a kind and taken on its own, not comparing to The Godfather or whatever, is one of the greatest crime dramas ever created.

Aside from a couple cheesy relationship based lines of dialogue, Heat is pretty much a perfect genre picture and it has so much style and presence with the city cinematography and the strong acting all around.

And it is easy to root for either or both of the protagonists/antiheros as it were.

I would tend to agree that Al has the upper hand overall after this rewatch, not counting the deus ex machina hotel revenge plot point at the end which always struck me as a little too convenient and contrived.

And Al can afford to miss after all, wheras Bob cannot in this story as a character even reminds us earlier..

 

Ah the lack of furniture. IKEA lol.

Agreed the audience needed to see Waingro meet his end.

The first time I ever saw Heat was from a friend who idolized DeNiro and was sad he died at the end.

Thinking back after this rewatch and finding the ease with which Neil infiltrates the hotel rather implausible, it might have been more interesting after all to have him escape with Eady...

 

It's an interesting watch now due to being a pre internet, mobile, CCTV world. The scene after the coffee house where Hanna gets told his team lost the surveillance on McAuley's crew being in a case in point.

I think it still works well but it is a slow burn that takes time to set up a large cast of characters and their relationships. That then all explodes in the second half.

There's an extra with Mann talking about how Hanna holds dual beliefs - he respects McAuley's skills but he'll also kill him if he has to. This can be applied across to the other characters too.

One interesting bit from an extra looking back at it is the finale wouldn't be possible now as filming in airports got banned.

 

I think it's in a somewhat weird spot where the general public like it (or at least the coffee shop scene and bank robbery/shootout) while it's really more dedicated film aficionados (like moi) who love it. A common complaint is that it spends too long on the characters' relationship drama and family life, but that stuff works for me. The scene where Neil and Eady are on her balcony overlooking the city is achingly romantic:



One of the things about Mann is that if you listen to his commentary tracks and such, he's clearly obsessed with nailing the gritty details of tradecraft and the world his characters inhabit, while at the same time they talk in this heightened, stylized way, and I find the dichotomy really fascinating.

Also, not sure if any of you read the sequel/prequel novel that Mann co-wrote last year, but it's pretty good.

 

The algae does show up again.

In all seriousness, the prequel aspect (set in 1988) concerns Vincent hunting a gang of home invaders in Chicago, while at the same time Neil and his crew are plotting to hit a cartel stash house just over the edge of the US/Mexico border. The sequel aspect starts hours after the events of the film and ultimately spans up to the year 2000, and mainly focuses on Val Kilmer's character escaping LA and getting a job as a "security consultant" for a Chinese tycoon involved in the black market of Paraguay's Ciudad el Este.

 

What really needs to happen is an all female remake of Heat. Shot for shot. It would be a banger.

 

And they're all in extremely skimpy clothing and they change the title to Hot.

 

it's hard to believe this hasn't already happened.