| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/27/2007 : 22:35:01
Sleuth absolutely oozes elegance and visual symmetry, both in Kenneth Branagh's meticulous precision that plays with your p.o.v. as Pinter's dialogue plays with the intention behind words.
Unfortunately, like Tony Shaffer's original stage play, all the focus is on the intricacy of game-playing to the detriment of whatever may be human in the two main characters. The play's an elegant conceit, and isn't deepened by this film version.
Ironically, its predecessor by Joseph Mankiewicz over thirty years ago, when Michael Caine played the lover of Laurence Olivier's offscreen wife - did admit some heart to leak out among the chess-cold mechanics between the two men.
Which isn't to say Branagh's a bad director, and certainly not to say Pinter's a bad screenwriter. But neither in this case ever puts substance over style.
We've got Caine again, this time in the Olivier role as Andrew Wyke, a very successful novelist whose wife has left him for Milo Tindle, an out-of-work actor. From the moment the actor, in this case Jude Law, motors up the private road to an impressive stately home, we're forced into comparisons between them. There's a slightly overly long overhead shot of the two cars - Law's little one a mini-version of Caine's. The shot says it all, really, but then the dialogue has to tromp over the image with lead-lined boots redundantly stating what the image has already conveyed ... this younger, cuter David is a Goliath wannabe.
Milo's there ostensibly to reason with Wyke to grant his wife a divorce. So starts a series of tests and counter-tests and the deeper we get the more unsure we become about who may or may not love whom and who's calling the shots. Literally.
What made the play a runaway hit and sparked the Mankiewicz film was the lightening pace of a piece riddled with bon mots. This exchange, removed from Pinter's script, serves as example: Convincing the young Milo to don a disguise, Andrew Wyke reasons, "Suppose somebody saw you coming." "Here?" says
Milo, "in the middle of nowhere? I could hardly find this place with a bloody map!" To which Andrew retorts: "You never know. A dallying couple, a passing sheep-rapist."
Pinter's replaced a lot of that with his own, more blatantly menacing dialogue that keeps crashing into bedroom analogies. Somehow, though, this tends to lessen the menace, and the moment-to-moment enjoyment.
Caine comes out of it best, though the appearance of Law's alter ego does him credit despite its less than perfect deceit. Branagh's control of the camera is exemplary, conveying far more than merely putting pictures to words. But in the end, it's all a game.
|
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| demonic |
Posted - 11/29/2007 : 03:23:17
I was disappointed, but it wasn't a total failure for me, mainly because I was half expecting it to be a total failure. The first problem is the play is now an old pot-boiler with some lovely dialogue but a deeply flawed central conceit that doesn't really work on stage and certainly doesn't work on film. Caine didn't pull it off in the original movie (but can be forgiven because it's an excellent performance) and Law doesn't either. So far, no surprises. I'm no fan of Jude Law - I think he's essentially a very boring actor hiding inside a very good looking movie star, but he was far better in this than I imagined and turns in some quality work. In the latter half of the film he shows some range previously unnoticed, but (spoiler here - sorry can't avoid it)....
it's worth pointing out that no matter how well Jude conceals himself under the prosthetics (very, very badly fluctuating accent aside) he never convinces as a real person, just a very strange character anyone would know instinctively isn't what they appear to be. Not appearing to be Jude - very good, appearing as another person - very bad.
I found the sexual innuendo and constant Pinteresque menace tiring, and also missed the quality of Shaffer's dialogue. After all, Pinter would never have written something as joyfully mischevious or theatrically crafty as the original play. I did like the newly imagined last reel though - that brought out some ambiguity and tasty bits of drama.
Finally the new obsession with cold, efficient, streamlined technology stripped away the gameplaying and the "sleuth-ing" of the title, and as a result both the performances. A shame really, but there's always Olivier and Caine to enjoy in the original. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 13:34:11
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I'm still happy with the falseness and flatness of the characters. That worked fine for me, especially in the staccato rhythms of their speech. It was the game-playing that disappointed me in the end.
It's a shame, really, because Tony would have been disappointed. And, yes, I did know both him and his twin brother Peter. Both very intelligent, acerbically funny.
But hey - I'm glad you had a good time at the movies!
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 10:26:24
I'm still happy with the falseness and flatness of the characters. That worked fine for me, especially in the staccato rhythms of their speech. It was the game-playing that disappointed me in the end. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 09:58:31
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I don't think there's any need for substance to be placed above style. In that regard, I didn't feel there would have been any benefit in seeing more of the characters' characters.
However, the film fell flat for me at the end. I haven't seen the play and only came across the previous film by chance when I was quite young, so I was expecting there to be more back-and-forth.
You're right about the car dialogue being pointless - or rather, it was pointless in combination with the shot.
Of course there are no rights and wrongs about this stuff ... but ...
I never said you have to see more of them, merely to enliven them as something other than pawns in each other's game to such an overwhelming extent. There are hints, but only from Caine - who occasionally introduces a note of unexpected ambiguity that justifies the ending. With Law it always feels part of the game - viz my 6th para.
The first film did it, and I suspect it's because of that you get more totally engaged in the game-playing. There's just something too mechanistic and schematic in this version -- elegant though it is. And to replace Tony's perfectly good dialogue at every turn just for the sake of it, seems churlish. I say this as a big fan of Pinter, and acknowledge that in the writing pantheon Pinter definitely takes precedence over Shaffer.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 08:55:09
I don't think there's any need for substance to be placed above style. In that regard, I didn't feel there would have been any benefit in seeing more of the characters' characters.
However, the film fell flat for me at the end. I haven't seen the play and only came across the previous film by chance when I was quite young, so I was expecting there to be more back-and-forth.
You're right about the car dialogue being pointless - or rather, it was pointless in combination with the shot. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 07:27:52
Aw, shame. I had such high hopes for this one. |
|
|
