By Steven Boone
Screened at the 45th New York Film Festival.
[Editor's Note: "On The Circuit" is a joint production of The House Next Door and Zoom In Online. For news, events, training, and other points of interest to the creative community, please visit Zoom In Online by clicking here.]
They get mean when they get old, these great directors. Hitchcock made the merciless, despairing Frenzy at 73. Woody Allen wrote and directed the godless-universe tragedy Match Point at 70. And now 83-year-old Sidney Lumet damns us all with Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. But just like Frenzy and Match Point, Lumet's crime saga pulsates with a sense of its creator's pure joy of filmmaking. "Unimaginably pleasurable to make," Orson Welles once told Peter Bogdanovich of the former's ecstatically grim Touch of Evil. Well, even as the bodies slump over bleeding in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, you can almost hear Lumet giggling.
Let's take a quixotic lunge at describing this flick without giving up crucial spoilers that the oncoming months of buzz, festival coverage, TV spots and trailers surely will: Hard up for cash, coke-sniffing executive Andy (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and his blue collar younger brother Hank (Ethan Hawke) plot a jewelry store heist that, yep, goes all wrong. The plan was to use no weapons, just a toy gun, but somehow a loved one, the last person in the world either of them would want to hurt, ends up critically wounded and brain dead. Still, they escape the law and suspicion -- until their father Charles (Albert Finney) starts investigating the crime on his own. It was his jewelry store, after all. Buckets of blood, sweat and tears ensue.
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is New Jersey playwright Kelly Masterson's first original screenplay; he seems to have studied the mathematical construction and high melodrama of the great noirs before jotting down a word. Not bad. This film is satisfying in a thousand old-fashioned ways and ludicrous in others that matter more to plot/continuity accountants than to folks who like their crime stories operatic. If you're the type who couldn't get past a pivotal scene in De Palma's Scarface because, "come on, nobody can sniff that much cocaine and then shoot straight," then you'll probably have trouble with this flick. It all hinges on whether you believe these suburban Joes are desperate enough to pull even a small-time heist.
Lumet is more concerned with 1) orchestrating scenes with the Swiss timing and piercing compositions we remember from his best films (Serpico; The Verdict); 2) honoring and lavishing the dysfunctional family dramatic thread that gives the film both its momentum and its credibility problems; 3) giving some gifted actors a whole lot of red meat to chomp on. Sorry to drop yet another name, but Stephen Frears's Dirty Pretty Things was this kind of beast: Frears's love for his motley assortment of actors and of choice, flavorful moments powered through a kind of unbelievable story about immigrants selling their organs. (Look here, ain't no immigrant who looks like Audrey Tautou desperate enough to sell any organs that ain't on the outside.) Before the Devil Knows You're Dead runs with the notion that the brothers are so down and out and insecure because of their stone-hard father's emotional abuse. (Thank God Daddy-obsessed Spielberg didn't snatch up this script.) Even though the robbery is intended as a "victimless crime" in which Pop would be reimbursed by insurance, it's clear that their scheme is also a latent act of rebellion. This is the kind of subtext actors love to play with, and Lumet doesn't stand in their way.
Hoffman portrays the kind of corporate go-getter who frets over his net worth the way some men check penis length -- and for the same reasons: His luscious wife Gina (Marisa Tomei) has expensive tastes. Tomei plays a calculating wifey with a heart full of the same stuff she's digging. She really cares about Andy, despite carrying a secret that essentially makes a fool out of him and leads to a fatal confrontation. As the brothers' mom, Rosemary Harris is roughly the same bland old WASP lady she plays as Spiderman's Aunt May. Here she gets to show some physical skill in the first of the film's three crackling action-suspense scenes. Albert Finney initially plays Dad a bit frail and long past his days of being the family tyrant, until he gets consumed with solving the crime. Lumet gives him and Hoffman what could have been their "could have been a contender" moment of confession and tearful lament, but the scene is overwritten and dramatically unnecessary. A better "contender" duet happens between Hoffman and Hawke. Hanging their heads in shame at what they've done, they struggle to figure out their next move, only to dredge up more and more shameful family business. Though Hoffman's character is the cokehead, Hawke plays Hank like a hardcore dope fiend throughout. He'd be the film's standout performer if it weren't for Michael Shannon's brief scenes as a ball-busting extortionist. Shannon has a face and presence Lumet surely wishes he'd had had on tap for character roles in Dog Day Afternoon and Prince of the City.
There's not much new here, aside from Lumet's enthusiasm and simple craft. In the age of Transformers, that's enough for me.
____________________________________________________
Steven Boone is a New York-based critic and filmmaker, a contributor to Vinyl is Heavy and the publisher of the pop culture blog Big Media Vandalism.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
"On the Circuit": Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Wow, awesome review Steven! I love what you say about directors getting mean when they get old. I'm a big Lumet fan - even when he stumbles - so I'm excited to see it.
If Lumet has indeed made another comeback, I'm glad it's with a movie that's not about cop corruption; I think he's been to that well too many times, and the last time ("Night Falls on Manhattan") it definitely felt like a case of diminishing returns.
Directors do get meaner when they get older -- except for Eastwood, who I think got a lot gentler and more reflective.
Night Falls on Manhattan sucked. It was like everyone was sleepwalking thru that thing. Yawn. I'd see a McDonalds commercial if Lumet directed it ... but that was a huge disappointment.
John Huston, too, got a bit gentler as he got older. He probably burnt the mean-ness out of him about a decade before!!
The calculus of what you'll accept in a film and what you'll forgive is so personal, and so tied to each individual, that evaluating films like this one based on reviews approaches impossible. This review is exactly the kind I need to read on a movie like this -- what makes sense and what doesn't -- and even while it's pretty obvious that Steven liked this movie, I'm not so sure I could get past the stuff he's able to swallow. Now what I really need to do is go read some of his reviews on things I've already seen, and see how much our viewpoints agree there, and make myself a yardstick.
sheila: "John Huston, too, got a bit gentler as he got older. He probably burnt the mean-ness out of him about a decade before!!"
True. Bunuel, on the other hand, started out mean and got positively corrosive as he went along. And Woody Allen, who for a long time camouflaged his cruel streak beneath knockabout humor and intellectual banter, got really nasty right around the time of the Mia Farrow/Soon Yi thing. "Husbands and Wives" was the beginning of the "I hate the world" Allen, and "Deconstructing Harry" pretty much sealed it. (I still laugh thinking about the elevator to hell. "Floor seven, the media...sorry, that floor is all filled up.")
I'm not on the same page with you, Steven, about "Serpico." I saw it again at Film Forum not too long ago and thought it played long, treated Serpico as too much of a hippie Christ figure, and had some of the most unconvincing domestic scenes this side of a Steven Seagal movie. "Dog Day Afternoon" and "Q & A," however, are two of my favorite Lumets, and "Network," while intentionally bombastic, is still funny and prescient.
Matt, I doubt this film will be any sort of comeback, not commercially, anyway. It's not 2007 "state of the art"-- that is, its pace and rhythms are pre-non-linear editing, pre-CGI, pre-Bruckheimer. You wouldn't think those influences would touch Ho'wood's and Indiewood's "prestige" dramas, but they do. On the level of storytelling, I don't see much difference between The Brave One and Transformers.
Sheila, see the movie, but I hope I haven't sold it as some great classic. My response to it has more to do with the novelty of a film that doesn't cover a simple moment from 50 different angles, then flits through them like a closed-circuit switcher; doesn't hammer points home with subwoofer thumps, Omen choruses or a pop selection from the studio's music division. Whatever pos or neg qualities this flick has, they're passed on to us through cuts, camera movement and choreography.
It's a rare simple pleasure these days, one that I expect a contemporary audience of "Plausibles" and A.D.D. sufferers won't appreciate.
I liked Lumet's last sorta-ridiculous movie, Find Me Guilty, for the same reasons. Yeah it was cheap and kind of cheesy, but nothing last year moved or sounded like it. Its laughs were small, but they were real.
Here's more on aging directors, mean and nice.
Yeah, "Night Falls on Manhattan" did suck, but James Gandolfini was good in it, and as for Ian Holm: well, can we just give this man a Nobel Prize for Acting? If you don't think he's deserving, then check out his King Lear, which is available at least on VHS.
And speaking of great performances in Lumet's films (and there are plenty, since SL loves actors and directs them well), why don't people bring up Armand Assante's turn in "Q&A"? Stanley Kauffmann has been a consistent admirer of Assante, and "Q&A" shows why.
Matt: did Bunuel really become "positively corrosive"? Though the sixties films are savage, Bunuel's last features strike me as pretty gentle in their satire.
dm494: I dunno -- the style became gentler but the content, with some exceptions, had a definite sting. "Discreet Charm" struck me as pretty merciless (though laid back in style) and "Le Moine," while pretty ineffective, was no hearts-and-flowers movie. And in "That Obscure Object of Desire," you've got a guy in a disintegrating society who barely notices all the terrorism and general unhappiness around him because he's mooning over a woman. For me, the reflectiveness and slow pace made many of Bunuel's 70s movies seem darker than something like "Belle de Jour" and "Exterminating Angel," which had spring in their step.
But that's me. Your mileage may vary.
I actually think Lumet's best cop corruption by far was "Prince of the City", which has a great Treat Williams performance at its center.
This is the Lumet movie I would rank up there with "Dog Day Afternoon" & "Network".
Just saw this for the first time the other night. I didn't know anything about it beyond crime-gone-wrong. Holy God.
Anyway, yes, the problem with the "confessional" scene is that it should not be there. It's a simple case of show don't tell, please, and not too much showing s needed either while you're at it.
We do not, and in the end cannot -- not in any explicit way -- understand the genesis of the horrific act that takes place in the movie; to have that scene try to "explain" it, only knocks the entire movie down a notch and creates a kind of canard. Nothing in that scene illuminates anything.
But it must be quite a tricky balance, the too much/too little balance, that is.
Post a Comment