(originally
published in The Outreach Connection
in March 2007)
David
Fincher’s Zodiac is a completely
engrossing film, reminiscent of Sidney Lumet’s classic procedural epics like Prince of the City and Q&A. Stretching over more than ten
years, it charts the search for the “Zodiac” killer who terrorized California
for several years from 1969 onwards (and was the basis for the murderer in the
first Dirty Harry movie). The complicated but admirably comprehensible
structure focuses on three main protagonists – a crime reporter (Robert Downey
Jr.), a cop (Mark Ruffalo) and an editorial cartoonist (Jake Gyllenhaal), all
of whom spend years of their lives trying to put it together, all paying a
personal price – surrounded by dozens of other characters, often caught in
bureaucratic hell (along the way, you learn quite a lot about the limitations
of intra-state law enforcement).
Zodiac
Fincher’s
work here is fluid and assured, but quite restrained by his previous standards,
with little of the taste for grandeur of Se7en
or Fight Club (just enough, perhaps,
so you know he’s still got it). Ultimately this limits the film’s overall
achievement: it’s not important
enough to excite you on the highest level. There’s that theme of obsession, and
the intriguing hint that the killer’s taste for melodrama is an extension of
his cinephilia (the old manhunt movie The
Most Dangerous Game seems to have been a particular inspiration), but these
are really just vague flavours in a film that impresses you overall more for
its doggedness, organization and tenacity (it’s unusual in Hollywood terms to
see a film where persistent failure and disappointment are so prominent). Among
many fine (and some nicely creepy) performances, Downey stands out, as so
often, for simply delivering the best line readings in the entire business; by
contrast the nerdy Gyllenhaal character, who seizes on the case as an
opportunity for self-actualization, always feels more like a device than an
actual character (even though, ironically, he’s playing the guy who wrote the
book behind the film).
Shonali
Bose’s film Amu has good intentions
galore, almost completely undone by near-hopeless execution. It starts with a
young woman visiting her birthplace in Delhi for the first time since she was
adopted at the age of 3 and taken to LA. She wanders round, exploring her
heritage, gradually realizing that her birth parents didn’t die in a malaria
epidemic as she’d always been told; their trail ends instead in a 1984 riot
where thousands of Sikhs were killed. This event, apparently carried out with
significant political complicity and subject since then to an ongoing hush
campaign, is obviously a worthy subject for a film, but by the time you get
through a first half that plays like a Nancy
Drew in Delhi episode, your goodwill is already exhausted. Bose’s approach
is relentlessly superficial, with awful dialogue and plotting and unimpressive
acting, and the ultimate flashback to the riots is hampered both by an apparent
low budget and more seriously by a lack of real explanation and context. I
should note though that based on surfing the web it seems to have been well
received in India, and it doesn’t cop out by ending on a redemptive note, so
maybe aesthetic merit isn’t the primary consideration here.
The Namesake
Staying
with India, Mira Nair is clearly a much more accomplished director than Shonali
Bose, which makes The Namesake that
much keener a disappointment. This epic of two generations moving from India to
America and then to some extent back again (some physically; others
spiritually) is often shockingly slack and meandering. It’s based on a highly
regarded novel, and perhaps on paper the authorial voice brought some greater
coherence to what soon comes to seem here like an all-but-endless succession of
life changes, mostly presented in the same well-meaning but ineffectual tone
(with escalating weepiness content). The basis of the title – the inspirational
role of Russian author Gogol in the father’s life, embodied by his giving that
name to his son – seems here like little more than an affectation, and the film
becomes increasingly clogged with flashbacks, to an extent that gets to feel
self-regarding. Of course it’s smooth enough, and some thematic interest is
inherent in the material, but the film is certainly light on specific merit.
The
British comedy Starter For Ten could
only possibly have been made because of its sole gimmick, to evoke the warhorse
British TV show University Challenge, an incomprehensible geekfest that I used
to watch with the same bewilderment as everyone else. James McAvoy plays a small
town boy who makes it into Bristol University and then with unlikely speed onto
the quiz team; he falls in love with a blonde looker while overlooking someone
much more suitable; alienates his old friends and then just about everyone
else; loses his way all round; goes on a shooting rampage before killing
himself. Or maybe he finds redemption. You decide. The film has very few laughs
but delivers the standard undemanding pleasantness, aided with lots of Cure on
the soundtrack. I would like to take a vow never to use that phrase
“undemanding pleasantness” or its variants ever again, but unfortunately I
think I’ll be needing them.
The Aura
The Aura is the second and last film by director
Fabian Bielinsky, who died last year of a heart attack. It’s the excellently
plotted tale of a dissatisfied taxidermist who reluctantly accompanies a friend
on a hunting trip; before the first day is over, his friend has abandoned him,
and he’s accidentally shot and killed the owner of the hunting lodge. It turns
out the dead man used the lodge as a cover for a criminal network, and the next
job is just a few days away. The
taxidermist finds himself drawn into taking the dead man’s place, seeing a
chance to prove himself at something,
despite his patent inadequacy for the role.
The
movie is a fine, deliberately paced thriller, but the real thrill was in how it
started reminding me of Antonioni’s The
Passenger, which is a high compliment. Bielinsky’s tone is more
straightforward and gritty than Antonioni’s, but at times his film is as
effective in melding inner and outer worlds, and The Aura is full of distinctive, perfectly placed twists and
nuances. Bielinsky’s first film, the scam-laden Nine Queens, was even more intricately plotted, but the structure
there was almost too rich – it was
barely clear you could take any of it seriously. On the other hand, there might
have been a lurking commentary there on the chaotic state of contemporary
Argentina; an aspect that The Aura
doesn’t get into at all. Just like Antonioni in The Passenger, Bielinsky’s next film - if he’d continued to get better - might
have reclaimed that political specificity while still tapping an existential
timelessness: a gorgeous combination for any film. But now we’ll never know.
No comments:
Post a Comment