A comedic actor traveling into more dramatic territory is often a risky thing. For some, it turns out great (Tom Hanks in PHILADELPHIA, Jim Carrey in THE TRUMAN SHOW, etc.) but for others, it merely exposes their rather bland acting abilities (Will Ferrell in STRANGER THAN FICTION, Adam Sandler in SPANGLISH/REIGN OVER ME, etc.). Luckily for Steve Carrell, his latest foray into the world of dramedy, DAN IN REAL LIFE, is a complete triumph. The film itself is a bit of a mash-up; plot points and scenarios that are almost too-familiar strung together to make a by-the-books family comedy. Yet from the strength of Carrell’s performance, and the amiability of the whole cast, DAN IN REAL LIFE comes off better than it actually should.
Dan Burns (Carrell) is parental advice columnist whose writings seem to influence everyone’s life but his own. A widower with three daughters, Dan is a pitch-perfect example of a nervous father; forbidding his daughters from taking any chances (whether it be letting his oldest girl try driving or his middle daughter try dating) for fear of rather irrational dangers. He drags them along on a yearly family reunion, where they are bombarded by the enormous, nosy and cloying network of aunts and uncles, including Dianne Wiest and John Mahoney as the parents. On a routine book to the ol’ Book and Tackle Shop, Dan meets up with Marie (a radiant Juliette Binoche) a down-to-earth beauty. They instantly connect. Yet their relationship instantly becomes strained when Dan realizes that Marie is dating his brother Mitch (a surprisingly effective Dane Cook). As Dan’s feelings for Marie develop, his carefully planned way of life/parenting begins to crumble.
The plot is a bit ho-hum, and some of the comedic moments are far too familiar. Dan’s repeated run-ins with the same police officer fall flat, and the script subscribes to the belief that there’s nothing funnier than a middle-aged man trying to exercise or dance. Director and co-writer Peter Hedges (2003’s PIECES OF APRIL) constructs these scenes well, despite their clichéd nature. Laughter is obtained, yet it remains muted throughout. The film becomes stronger when it sets aside comic conventions and aims for honesty. These moments are incredibly effective and balance the tired shticks it wrings out to get laughs.
The main reason for the effectiveness of the dramatic scenes is the honest, likable cast that remains fully committed to the material. Carrell’s finest moments come from his subtler actions; many times, Dan seems so tightly wound that he’s an inch away from a complete breakdown. And while Dan is given the awkward romantic bent in many scenes, the more meaningful scenes become the film’s most affecting, heart wrenching moments. When Dan begins to express his true feelings through song (as one must do in a family dramedy) the self-consciousness and quietness Carrell brings to the scene lifts the entire sequence onto a level of unspeakable honesty. As Marie, Binoche contributes another compelling performance, excelling in both comedic and dramatic sequences. Binoche and Carrell certainly do make an unlikely pair, but by the film’s end, everyone in the audience will be convinced they were born for each other.
Without the film’s performances, DAN IN REAL LIFE would nowhere be the accomplishment it is. Yet Peter Hedges directs his leads to two of the best performances of the year, and the material is ably supported by the rest of the cast. The film is far from original, its borrowed conventions becoming painfully obvious at times. Despite this, it remains charming and carries its viewers through the entire experience. Not perfect by any means, but in a time where the market is saturated with Halloween horror movies and utterly serious awards contenders, it’s a welcome change to see a smaller film that speaks truthfully about the commitments of having a family while throwing some laughs in for good measure.
***1/2
Friday, October 26, 2007
Friday, October 19, 2007
30 Days of Night
In its ever-present advertising over the past few weeks, 30 DAYS OF NIGHT promised a terrifying new vision of the vampire. But what detracts from the norm is not always new, nor is a vampire always terrifying. Both appear to be the case in this film, which does make an attempt to depart from films similar to it. Unfortunately, the most intriguing (perhaps terrifying) aspects of the story are left unexplored, leaving the audience with nothing but a few mildly effective jump scares sandwiched between long chunks of uninteresting character and plot development.
The action is set in the northernmost point of the United States: a small, isolated town in Alaska that is plunged into 30 days of night every year, due to the angle and rotation of the Earth. The last day of sunlight proves an unusual one for the town’s sheriff (Josh Hartnett); a pile of cell phones has been gathered and burned on the edge of town, a resident’s dogs have been ruthlessly slaughtered, and a mysterious and unsettling stranger (Ben Foster) appears in town, telling of a great evil that is to come. When the night finally falls on the town, the evil unleashes itself. A group of violent, unforgiving and gruesome vampires descend on the town, attacking anyone and everyone in sight. The town is slowly whittled down to a small group of survivors, including the sheriff’s estranged wife (Melissa George), who must fight to survive until the sun rises.
These vampires are indeed different from the usual breed; there are no flowing capes, no intense vampiric stares. These creatures are more animalistic predators than anything else. However, the film uses these animal-like behaviors as the main crutch of its suspense sequences, making nearly every potential scare a jump scare that is completely expected. Only in the typical and clichéd finale does the film try a different kind of suspense, but the viewer has long since lost interest. Instead, most of the action is devoted to the small group of survivors moving from hiding place to hiding place, asking “how can this happen?” and “why are they doing this?” while keeping each other from running away. Of course, this kind of talk is obligatory in a horror film, but there’s simply too much of it here.
There are a few strengths, however. The film is ably acted by its leads, with Hartnett, George and Danny Huston (unrecognizable as the head vampire) delivering solid performances with precious little to work with. However, Ben Foster as the comic relief (or so I assume, since his performance elicited so much laughter from the audience) gives the exact same performance he gave earlier this year in 3:10 TO YUMA. Pretty much the same accent as well, curiously enough. Director David Slade (2005’s HARD CANDY) imbues the film with a sophisticated visual style, much more defined than the average horror film. If only the film’s level of terror matched the director’s eye, we would have a film worthy of its story. As it is, the five minute sequences of quick cuts and gore aren’t nearly thrilling or shocking enough to balance out the ten minutes of banal exposition surrounding them. It takes an interesting premise and only begins to scratch the surface of its possibilities. Still, it’s October, so it will doubtless provide a momentary diversion for thrill seekers. And by the looks of it, that’s all the filmmakers were really aiming for.
*
The action is set in the northernmost point of the United States: a small, isolated town in Alaska that is plunged into 30 days of night every year, due to the angle and rotation of the Earth. The last day of sunlight proves an unusual one for the town’s sheriff (Josh Hartnett); a pile of cell phones has been gathered and burned on the edge of town, a resident’s dogs have been ruthlessly slaughtered, and a mysterious and unsettling stranger (Ben Foster) appears in town, telling of a great evil that is to come. When the night finally falls on the town, the evil unleashes itself. A group of violent, unforgiving and gruesome vampires descend on the town, attacking anyone and everyone in sight. The town is slowly whittled down to a small group of survivors, including the sheriff’s estranged wife (Melissa George), who must fight to survive until the sun rises.
These vampires are indeed different from the usual breed; there are no flowing capes, no intense vampiric stares. These creatures are more animalistic predators than anything else. However, the film uses these animal-like behaviors as the main crutch of its suspense sequences, making nearly every potential scare a jump scare that is completely expected. Only in the typical and clichéd finale does the film try a different kind of suspense, but the viewer has long since lost interest. Instead, most of the action is devoted to the small group of survivors moving from hiding place to hiding place, asking “how can this happen?” and “why are they doing this?” while keeping each other from running away. Of course, this kind of talk is obligatory in a horror film, but there’s simply too much of it here.
There are a few strengths, however. The film is ably acted by its leads, with Hartnett, George and Danny Huston (unrecognizable as the head vampire) delivering solid performances with precious little to work with. However, Ben Foster as the comic relief (or so I assume, since his performance elicited so much laughter from the audience) gives the exact same performance he gave earlier this year in 3:10 TO YUMA. Pretty much the same accent as well, curiously enough. Director David Slade (2005’s HARD CANDY) imbues the film with a sophisticated visual style, much more defined than the average horror film. If only the film’s level of terror matched the director’s eye, we would have a film worthy of its story. As it is, the five minute sequences of quick cuts and gore aren’t nearly thrilling or shocking enough to balance out the ten minutes of banal exposition surrounding them. It takes an interesting premise and only begins to scratch the surface of its possibilities. Still, it’s October, so it will doubtless provide a momentary diversion for thrill seekers. And by the looks of it, that’s all the filmmakers were really aiming for.
*
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Michael Clayton
Acclaimed screenwriter Tony Gilroy (whose credits include the recent BOURNE films) makes his directorial debut with MICHAEL CLAYTON, a legal drama that recalls the feel of 1970s paranoid thrillers to craft its story of a lawyer with questionable morals thrust into the dangerous world of big business’s most secret dealings. With an admirable turn by George Clooney, supported with a solid script and uniformly excellent performances from the supporting cast, MICHAEL CLAYTON serves as a stylish and assured debut from one of Hollywood’s smartest voices.
Michael Clayton (a shagged-up Clooney) is known as a “fixer” at his law firm; he comes in quietly and solves problems as quickly as possible, regardless of the legality of his actions. Yet when one of his coworkers, Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson), embroiled in a six year long lawsuit as a major corporation’s defender, strips down during an interrogation and runs through a parking lot, Michael realizes there may be more than the man’s own mental instability. Before he knows it, Michael finds himself acting against a dangerous and deadly cover-up lead by the company.
The plot seems unusual for a legal thriller, and the film certainly is. Instead of focusing on the cover-up, Gilroy is more concerned with the characters: the line Michael crosses between helping a friend and doing his job and the question of mental instability when Arthur’s mad ramblings begin to show merit. The actual legal battle between the corporation and the affected citizens is only briefly touched on. The rather narrow scope of the film gives it an isolated effect, a kind of “anywhere anytime” feel; it does not pin itself to one situation completely. This is where Gilroy plays into the paranoia aspect directly; the events of this film could happen to anyone in any situation.
Yet the script has a tendency to overemphasize several themes. Most lines that take longer than ten seconds to deliver are morphed into long speeches filled with quick-paced wordplay and lots and lots of underlying meaning. The character of Michael’s son seems there only to ramble on about a book that seems to connect to everyone else’s life in some way or another. And in an effort to inject some suspense and confusion in the viewer, the prologue takes place four days into the film’s plot. While it does successfully create a sense of disorientation (as in the best paranoia thrillers), the sequence becomes rather tedious and ineffective when the film returns to it.
But the film is bolstered by strong performances all around. As the titular character, Clooney strips himself of the easygoing charm so obviously detectable in most of his roles thus far. Here, he is driven and determined, relying on his tenacity and quick-thinking rather than his ability to win people over. Tilda Swinton is equally intriguing as the spokeswoman of the corporation, though she is sadly underused. The biggest impression, and the showiest performance, is given by Wilkinson, whose raving antics (“I am Sheba the god of death!”) have been a staple of the film’s promotion. For most of the film, interest is driven purely by Wilkinson, wondering if his nearly-incoherent ramblings mean anything. Though the film is anchored ably by Clooney’s solid work, one almost wishes Wilkinson were the focus.
Gilroy films in a very sparse, cold and sleek style. Each of the characters seem isolated, often the lone figures in long takes. The muted color scheme and dim lighting also heighten the subdued, quiet nature of the film. While nothing revolutionary, the film’s look serves its purpose and supports the script and the performances, which are the heart of the piece. Gilroy is still much more of a writer than a director, but that doesn’t keep MICHAEL CLAYTON from being one of the most intelligent, involving thrillers this year. It will not grip audiences with constant tension or half-hour long chase sequences; it prefers to get under your skin and unsettle you from there. And in the end, it is the latter that is much more effective.
***
Michael Clayton (a shagged-up Clooney) is known as a “fixer” at his law firm; he comes in quietly and solves problems as quickly as possible, regardless of the legality of his actions. Yet when one of his coworkers, Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson), embroiled in a six year long lawsuit as a major corporation’s defender, strips down during an interrogation and runs through a parking lot, Michael realizes there may be more than the man’s own mental instability. Before he knows it, Michael finds himself acting against a dangerous and deadly cover-up lead by the company.
The plot seems unusual for a legal thriller, and the film certainly is. Instead of focusing on the cover-up, Gilroy is more concerned with the characters: the line Michael crosses between helping a friend and doing his job and the question of mental instability when Arthur’s mad ramblings begin to show merit. The actual legal battle between the corporation and the affected citizens is only briefly touched on. The rather narrow scope of the film gives it an isolated effect, a kind of “anywhere anytime” feel; it does not pin itself to one situation completely. This is where Gilroy plays into the paranoia aspect directly; the events of this film could happen to anyone in any situation.
Yet the script has a tendency to overemphasize several themes. Most lines that take longer than ten seconds to deliver are morphed into long speeches filled with quick-paced wordplay and lots and lots of underlying meaning. The character of Michael’s son seems there only to ramble on about a book that seems to connect to everyone else’s life in some way or another. And in an effort to inject some suspense and confusion in the viewer, the prologue takes place four days into the film’s plot. While it does successfully create a sense of disorientation (as in the best paranoia thrillers), the sequence becomes rather tedious and ineffective when the film returns to it.
But the film is bolstered by strong performances all around. As the titular character, Clooney strips himself of the easygoing charm so obviously detectable in most of his roles thus far. Here, he is driven and determined, relying on his tenacity and quick-thinking rather than his ability to win people over. Tilda Swinton is equally intriguing as the spokeswoman of the corporation, though she is sadly underused. The biggest impression, and the showiest performance, is given by Wilkinson, whose raving antics (“I am Sheba the god of death!”) have been a staple of the film’s promotion. For most of the film, interest is driven purely by Wilkinson, wondering if his nearly-incoherent ramblings mean anything. Though the film is anchored ably by Clooney’s solid work, one almost wishes Wilkinson were the focus.
Gilroy films in a very sparse, cold and sleek style. Each of the characters seem isolated, often the lone figures in long takes. The muted color scheme and dim lighting also heighten the subdued, quiet nature of the film. While nothing revolutionary, the film’s look serves its purpose and supports the script and the performances, which are the heart of the piece. Gilroy is still much more of a writer than a director, but that doesn’t keep MICHAEL CLAYTON from being one of the most intelligent, involving thrillers this year. It will not grip audiences with constant tension or half-hour long chase sequences; it prefers to get under your skin and unsettle you from there. And in the end, it is the latter that is much more effective.
***
Friday, October 12, 2007
Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Elizabeth I’s recent wave of filmic popularity continues with director Shekhar Kapur’s ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE, his follow-up to the Oscar-nomined 1998 film ELIZABETH. He has assembled a mini-reunion of names and faces seen in the original film, including stars Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush and screenwriter Michael Hirst, among others. While the first film focused on the early years of Elizabeth’s reign, playing fast and free with facts and ultimately producing an engaging and passionate film, this sequel focuses on the Gloriana days during the middle of Elizabeth’s reign, a territory studied twice in the past two years (both for British television). As a result, not only does the action seem all-too familiar this time around, the film does not succeed in creating an overarching theme that forgives the dramatic license taken.
As the film opens, Spain is mounting an attack against the protestant queen, enlisting not only the help of a devoted Catholic sect in London, but of Mary, Queen of Scots herself (the film does end up portraying her in a rather villainous light). All the while, England’s stalwart queen (Blanchett) still finds herself dealing with courtiers and would-be husbands from across Europe. She is disinterested until her passions are roused by the adventurous Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen), who unfortunately also has eyes for Elizabeth’s favorite maid, Bess (Abbie Cornish). As pressure from Spain builds up and the queen’s opposition begins to show itself, Elizabeth must prove once again why God put her in her place.
As in ELIZABETH, the film rests entirely upon Blanchett’s shoulders. While she does have many strong moments throughout, she does not capture attention in the role as easily. She still remains a pillar of strength, her booming voice and cool complexion making her a natural born leader in every sense. Yet in the first half, the film seems to play almost as a comedy, and Blanchett reflects that. Instead of awe-inspiring tenacity, she imbues the character with a been-there, done-that sense of sarcasm reminiscent of Bette Davis in ALL ABOUT EVE. Once the action sets along its main course (the inevitable war with Spain), Blanchett strikes with all the bottled-in rage that the audience has been longing for. Her impassioned speeches, most notably to the Spanish ambassador and, later, to the English troops, are masterpieces of control and emotion. And as the film goes on, she begins to show signs of the panicked jealousy and fear that would mark Elizabeth’s later years, giving the fearless leader a more sympathetic slant sorely missed in the first half.
The film is sumptuously constructed, with every element seemingly one degree away from being over the top. That is, except the score, which is pervasive, loud and (at times) highly inappropriate. But the sheer epic scope as illustrated by the towering sets and intricate costumes make the film a visual feast. There are many beautiful images to behold, but even they veer dangerously toward the clichéd and over the top; a candle blowing out signifying defeat, a horse leaping over the side of a ship, etc. The script’s emphasis on wind is rather irritating as well. Not only does there seem to be a constant dramatic breeze blowing through drapes and curtains, but the characters make far too many references to the oncoming storm, the hurricane that is to come, the clouds that are gathering overhead, blah blah blah. The fact that there IS actually a storm when the English and Spanish collide makes these statements even more grating.
The film most errs in its depictions of the villains, which are so cartoonish and obvious that a two-year-old would be able to identify them. The Spanish are all of the moustache-twirling, darting eyes type, with Philip doing nothing more than delivering typically creepy sounding speeches of foreboding… well, creepiness. Even Samantha Morton’s minutes-long performance as Mary falls under into the clichéd villains club; the type that remains quietly evil and blindly aligned with their cause. It’s a wonder that the assassins in this film actually got so close to Elizabeth; they may as well be walking around with signs on their heads.
This film is a far cry from its predecessor, both in terms of storytelling and style. Where the first film was passionate and unexpected, this film plays it by the books, seeking out visual grandeur in place of meaningful scenes. Blanchett still gives it her all, and still remains impressive, but everything else seems half-baked, much like Elizabeth’s relationship with Raleigh. ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE is a sure sign that enough has been said about Elizabeth I in the world of film. It’s high time we moved on to the next fascinating monarch.
*1/2
As the film opens, Spain is mounting an attack against the protestant queen, enlisting not only the help of a devoted Catholic sect in London, but of Mary, Queen of Scots herself (the film does end up portraying her in a rather villainous light). All the while, England’s stalwart queen (Blanchett) still finds herself dealing with courtiers and would-be husbands from across Europe. She is disinterested until her passions are roused by the adventurous Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen), who unfortunately also has eyes for Elizabeth’s favorite maid, Bess (Abbie Cornish). As pressure from Spain builds up and the queen’s opposition begins to show itself, Elizabeth must prove once again why God put her in her place.
As in ELIZABETH, the film rests entirely upon Blanchett’s shoulders. While she does have many strong moments throughout, she does not capture attention in the role as easily. She still remains a pillar of strength, her booming voice and cool complexion making her a natural born leader in every sense. Yet in the first half, the film seems to play almost as a comedy, and Blanchett reflects that. Instead of awe-inspiring tenacity, she imbues the character with a been-there, done-that sense of sarcasm reminiscent of Bette Davis in ALL ABOUT EVE. Once the action sets along its main course (the inevitable war with Spain), Blanchett strikes with all the bottled-in rage that the audience has been longing for. Her impassioned speeches, most notably to the Spanish ambassador and, later, to the English troops, are masterpieces of control and emotion. And as the film goes on, she begins to show signs of the panicked jealousy and fear that would mark Elizabeth’s later years, giving the fearless leader a more sympathetic slant sorely missed in the first half.
The film is sumptuously constructed, with every element seemingly one degree away from being over the top. That is, except the score, which is pervasive, loud and (at times) highly inappropriate. But the sheer epic scope as illustrated by the towering sets and intricate costumes make the film a visual feast. There are many beautiful images to behold, but even they veer dangerously toward the clichéd and over the top; a candle blowing out signifying defeat, a horse leaping over the side of a ship, etc. The script’s emphasis on wind is rather irritating as well. Not only does there seem to be a constant dramatic breeze blowing through drapes and curtains, but the characters make far too many references to the oncoming storm, the hurricane that is to come, the clouds that are gathering overhead, blah blah blah. The fact that there IS actually a storm when the English and Spanish collide makes these statements even more grating.
The film most errs in its depictions of the villains, which are so cartoonish and obvious that a two-year-old would be able to identify them. The Spanish are all of the moustache-twirling, darting eyes type, with Philip doing nothing more than delivering typically creepy sounding speeches of foreboding… well, creepiness. Even Samantha Morton’s minutes-long performance as Mary falls under into the clichéd villains club; the type that remains quietly evil and blindly aligned with their cause. It’s a wonder that the assassins in this film actually got so close to Elizabeth; they may as well be walking around with signs on their heads.
This film is a far cry from its predecessor, both in terms of storytelling and style. Where the first film was passionate and unexpected, this film plays it by the books, seeking out visual grandeur in place of meaningful scenes. Blanchett still gives it her all, and still remains impressive, but everything else seems half-baked, much like Elizabeth’s relationship with Raleigh. ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE is a sure sign that enough has been said about Elizabeth I in the world of film. It’s high time we moved on to the next fascinating monarch.
*1/2
Friday, October 5, 2007
Lust, Caution
Ang Lee’s newest film, an erotically-charged espionage thriller with more than a few deliberate shades of Hitchcock is definitely not for the casual moviegoer. Not only will its occasionally meandering 2 ½-hour plus running time try the patience of the less easily engrossed, but the intensely graphic sex scenes (the film is rated NC-17, almost exclusively for that reason) will no doubt shock and offend many viewers. But to those that are swept away by the alluring visuals and suspenseful story, LUST, CAUTION will be a rich, wonderfully evocative experience.
The place is Japanese-occupied China in the midst of World War II. Wang Jiazhi (Wei Tang, making an impressive film debut) is a young college student who finds herself swept up in a resistance-centered drama troupe. When the leader of the troupe decides that merely staging theatrical protests is not enough, they turn to assassination. They disguise themselves in order to infiltrate the house of a political figure (Tony Leung) with known ties to the Japanese government. He begins to focus his attention on Wang, and the others soon realize the only way to get to him; he must be seduced.
But the plan, as always, is not simple; a fact represented well by the film’s length. The narrative stretches over several years, using the tried-and-true method of bookends to introduce the story. The problem, though, is that with the jumps back and forward in time, the chronological sequence of events becomes muddied for an extended period. And while the film is nail-bitingly suspenseful in parts, the effectiveness is subdued by the long stretches of straight dramatic scenes. The film does well with fleshing out its characters (as it should in a film this long), but it has too many near-climaxes for its own good; with each apparent finale dashed away, its energy sags just a bit. But this does not wither away the film too badly; by the film’s end, the engaged viewer is still completely engaged.
Yet the one aspect that will turn away the most viewers is the film’s graphic depictions of sex. Lee does not shy away from the act itself or the frightening, uncomfortable and disturbing emotions connected with it. The film’s thematic content is helped a great deal by the frankness of these scenes; a sequence where Wei and Leung’s bodies are literally meshed together visually illustrates the heroine’s mind far better than words ever could. This is one of the many Hitchcockian traits Lee uses to great effect; there is a distinct reliance on visuals over dialogue throughout, letting the actors’ eyes speak volumes more than their mouths.
As always with Lee’s films, the film is superbly constructed. All the technicals, from the lush production and costume design to the subdued cinematography brings wartime China vividly to life. Alexandre Desplat’s evocative score injects a sense of tragic romance in the film, shaping it into a thing of beauty reminiscent of VERTIGO. Lee gives great detail to the surrounding environment, making even the smallest of images, like lipstick on the edge of a cup, noticeable and meaningful.
LUST, CAUTION is not a film for someone who basically wants to stop thinking for two hours and watch a movie. Those who are up to the challenge will feel more than justly rewarded by what they see. It is a long, roller coaster-like journey, but a very effecting one. Those who watch it will understand that they’ve seen something very different; a film that takes severe risks and deftly pulls them off. Lee once again shows he is a modern master of the cinema, able to adapt to any genre and produce a work of art.
***
The place is Japanese-occupied China in the midst of World War II. Wang Jiazhi (Wei Tang, making an impressive film debut) is a young college student who finds herself swept up in a resistance-centered drama troupe. When the leader of the troupe decides that merely staging theatrical protests is not enough, they turn to assassination. They disguise themselves in order to infiltrate the house of a political figure (Tony Leung) with known ties to the Japanese government. He begins to focus his attention on Wang, and the others soon realize the only way to get to him; he must be seduced.
But the plan, as always, is not simple; a fact represented well by the film’s length. The narrative stretches over several years, using the tried-and-true method of bookends to introduce the story. The problem, though, is that with the jumps back and forward in time, the chronological sequence of events becomes muddied for an extended period. And while the film is nail-bitingly suspenseful in parts, the effectiveness is subdued by the long stretches of straight dramatic scenes. The film does well with fleshing out its characters (as it should in a film this long), but it has too many near-climaxes for its own good; with each apparent finale dashed away, its energy sags just a bit. But this does not wither away the film too badly; by the film’s end, the engaged viewer is still completely engaged.
Yet the one aspect that will turn away the most viewers is the film’s graphic depictions of sex. Lee does not shy away from the act itself or the frightening, uncomfortable and disturbing emotions connected with it. The film’s thematic content is helped a great deal by the frankness of these scenes; a sequence where Wei and Leung’s bodies are literally meshed together visually illustrates the heroine’s mind far better than words ever could. This is one of the many Hitchcockian traits Lee uses to great effect; there is a distinct reliance on visuals over dialogue throughout, letting the actors’ eyes speak volumes more than their mouths.
As always with Lee’s films, the film is superbly constructed. All the technicals, from the lush production and costume design to the subdued cinematography brings wartime China vividly to life. Alexandre Desplat’s evocative score injects a sense of tragic romance in the film, shaping it into a thing of beauty reminiscent of VERTIGO. Lee gives great detail to the surrounding environment, making even the smallest of images, like lipstick on the edge of a cup, noticeable and meaningful.
LUST, CAUTION is not a film for someone who basically wants to stop thinking for two hours and watch a movie. Those who are up to the challenge will feel more than justly rewarded by what they see. It is a long, roller coaster-like journey, but a very effecting one. Those who watch it will understand that they’ve seen something very different; a film that takes severe risks and deftly pulls them off. Lee once again shows he is a modern master of the cinema, able to adapt to any genre and produce a work of art.
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)