Tuesday, March 12, 2013

The Game




Nicholas is a world class pain in the neck. He's a millionaire, divorced, and lives by himself in "the biggest house on the street"  (a phrase he uses in the film to stress his importance and call attention to himself) which is his father's abandoned mansion. Think of Gordon Gekko from Wall Street, which should be easy since  Nicholas is played by Michael Douglas, and you'll get how much of a bad guy our main character is. At one point early on in the film, as it establishes his daily routine, he is shown eating breakfast standing up, perfectly still, while wearing a suit with his tie carefully slung over his shoulder so as not to stain it. The peculiarity of the image stuck with me. Nicholas seems robotic as he stands with perfect posture neatly consuming his breakfast. 


Director David Fincher seeks to portray him in the least humanistic way possible. He reinforces Michael Douglas's cold performance with an aloof and calculating style. Early on there are no handheld cameras or even significant movement of the camera. It just sits still at a distance mirroring Nicholas's rigidity, observing his perfectly controlled life. 


Into the equation comes Conrad (Sean Penn), Nicholas's brother, to shake things up. They meet for lunch. Conrad gets there significantly late, and upon arrival squirts water on his brother's face as a small practical joke. He then proceeds to make a quip about the jacket he was given to eat at the club's restaurant. Quite quickly, Conrad stands apart from his brother in every way possible. They haven't seen each other in two years, we are told, and yet Conrad waltzes into his brother's life as if nothing had happened and they had a healthy relationship. At first, I thought nothing of his demeanor, of his little jokes, but they actually turn out to be  significant for the film.


As a birthday gift, Conrad gives Nicholas a voucher for a game of some sort. What exactly is “the game” we don’t know, and neither does Nicholas. All his brother tells him is that it will surely change his life for the better. After clearly establishing this, director David Fincher has given himself a goal: to shock humanity into Nicholas, and fear into the audience, through his participation in “the game.” One of the pleasures of the film is slowly figuring out all of the pieces that go into “the game.” I will say one thing, though. The Game (the film) is a thriller, which becomes clearer as “the game” (within the film) unveils itself as increasingly macabre entertainment. One more note: Beware, this movie contains one of the scariest clowns in movie history.




 The level of commitment that went into this work is evident. Every piece of the puzzle (which is the main image of the opening credits) seemingly falls into place effortlessly, making the film go by in a heartbeat. From early on in his career, Fincher was an assured director. Part of what impresses me most about his films is the excellent pacing they display. None of his films are too long or slow, and I always find myself wishing they would last longer. Another of Fincher's strengths is his strong sense of visual composition. Often, Nicholas is framed by doors, archways, and people. Fincher shot the film so that the ceiling would be visible most of the time, making the audience feel trapped along with Nicholas in this bizarre game of which Fincher is in complete control. By the end, Fincher takes the story to its inevitable,cruel, logical conclusion and past it following perfectly twisted, perverse logic that I've come to expect from him. 



The score, I must briefly mention, by Howard Shore, is unnerving. It toys with the audience through its repetitiveness. The unassuming low-key piano set chills down my spine. The music rarely calls attention to itself, but its presence is felt.

Still, the great production value, high profile stars, great music and even a wonderful director can’t make a great film. The script should also be at the same level. Some of the choices Nicholas makes, such as participating in the game in the first place, simply don’t make a whole lot of sense. Plausibility is not the issue; this film is fantastically delirious, and I don’t want the films I watch to stay true to real life. The problem is that I don’t buy that the character we are introduced with at the start of the film would submit himself to such a ridiculous enterprise voluntarily. Look at The Game hard enough, think about it for a second longer than it asks for your attention, and the seams start to show, but while watching it, the movie  is an absorbing mind-bending experience.


Verdict- 3.5/4

The Game (1997) R 2h 9min. 


Friday, March 1, 2013

Lawless



A solid, entertaining, genre flick, Lawless has all the elements of a good western: the town on the edge of civilization, the isolated, tough hero living in his cabin in the woods, the girl who comes to town hiding from her past, and the ruthless deputy who materializes out of nowhere to settle the town under his control.
Tom Hardy
It also follows the conventions of the gangster genre. Set in the 1930s, under prohibition, Lawless follows the story of three brothers whose business is the manufacturing, transportation and sale of illegal alcohol.  It has the bootlegging, the, the machine guns, the suits, the hats, the rags to riches storyline, and the constant threat of death to our heroes. It's no masterpiece; it doesn't seek to reinvent either of the genres. Lawless plays it safe in that regard. However, what makes it worthy is the way this familiar material is handled.

Director John Hillcoat takes his time, carefully establishing the mood of the film. He focuses his attention on the atmosphere of the scenery, showing lingering shots of the woods surrounding the town. There is a dark, unsettling presence. It always feels as if is about to rain. It never does. It snows during a crucial scene. We are told countless times that our heroes, the three Bondurant brothers, are invincible, but we never really believe it. The violence in Lawless is crude, quick, and utterly unexpected. The film is extremely violent, but it's not exploitative.  Hillcoat portrays it as an unflattering reality of the times. However, it is not the violence itself that is most shocking, but the threat that at any time anyone can be attacked and killed, even the indestructible brothers. That is what makes Lawless so powerful.

Jessica Chastain

It also helps to have an immensely talented cast. Tom Hardy, although not the main character, quietly steals the show. He plays the eldest brother, Forrest, who is the leader of the all their activities.  Private and grumbling, he is the subject of a few jokes within the family, but Hardy is able to deliver a stone-cold stare that inspires genuine fear throughout the town (and I suspect among audience members too). Alongside him is Jessica Chastain, luminous as ever, playing Maggie, a girl from Chicago who just wanted to settle down, but who picked the wrong place to do so. I am surprised by how many different roles Chastain has played over her short career. Here, she exudes an admirable, defiant confidence  in scene after scene. The brothers might be invincible, but the toughest character around is Maggie. Also in this insanely talented cast are Mia Wasikowska and Gary Oldman. They are both severely underused.
Shia LaBeouf

The film instead centers on Jack (Shia LaBeouf), the youngest, as he seeks to prove himself tough enough to enter the family business. LaBeouf is outmatched. He's a perfectly capable actor, and could even become great  under the right director, but not here, not while he's anywhere near this cast.

I feel that Lawless should be a three hour masterpiece. It certainly had the potential. In the same way that he managed to build mood, the director should have taken the time to develop more thorough stories around the supporting characters. They were interesting enough to intrigue me, but not rich enough to move me. Still, Lawless is a very good way to spend two hours. Here's hoping for an extended director's cut.

Hardy and Chastain 
Verdict- 3/4
Lawless (2012)R.  1h 57min.