...wooden as hell? You could replace him with a 2X4 and wouldn't know the difference. The movie was good, but his character is very one-dimensional. There are many scenes where you think THIS guy and THAT girl would never have slept together let alone be together in the end?
[deleted]
I got the same impression initially when I watched it tonight for the first time, but as it progressed, I found him to be more self-contained than anything else, sort of hesitant and not at home in the world Bree inhabited. He conveyed a lot with his eyes, and of course he was terribly reserved, like he didn't want to fall for her and get in over his head.
Why wish for the moon when we can have the stars?
OP:
The characters are intentional. Klute's easing emphasises his acquired empathy with an unlikely character.
It's the crux of the film. If you don't like the character - you don't like the character. It shouldn't require a thread about it.
As one who regularly puts on stoic airs, Klute resonated more than many other characters in film. It's subjective, of course. To have him any other way would have come at detriment to the film.
I think Sutherland's character, John Klute was WRITTEN as a very one dimensional, flat character. Sutherland's perfomance was perfect to form. What you perceive as perhaps a poor delivery in performance by Sutherland was actually accurate, and the objective end result of John Klute, the character.
It really worked, IMHO.
What, just for once in your life can't you be serious?
"It's the crux of the film. If you don't like the character - you don't like the character. It shouldn't require a thread about it."
So, if he did like the character, it would require a thread about it? Isn't this a place to discuss opinions, good or bad as long as we respect eachother???
I should've left my phone @ home cause this is a Dizastah!
[deleted]
He was a rural straight-shooter hence the perceived "woodenness" - although I´d argue Sutherland displayed plenty of nuance portraying him.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
i'm most definitely gonna sound partial, 'cause i just adore Sutherland! i definitely agree with the facts that some other posters stated, about his eyes showing plenty, reservation, prudence, will to be professional only and so on...but i would also like to ad that, i thought Sutherland's uncommon looks were perfect for this film.
i don't mean he's hot in this (even though i find him deadly attractive!) but i think there's something about his lips and his eyes that ad to the "strange vibe" of the whole movie.
Lem! Lem, I'm sorry! But I had to, right?!
To the person who started this thread:
I tend to agree with the other posters here.
Here's my take on it.
Klute and Bree were 2 completely opposite people whose lives intersected. They were both unshakeable, each in their own unique way.
But something happened, and they both began to accept each other. They grew closer and closer, which is fine, because they both needed that closeness.
As everyone else here has said, Fonda's performance is brilliant, but I have to thank Sutherland for the way he did his role. It was a perfect foil to Jane's character.
Therefore, we have 2 stories here, or at least, I think I do.
First is what got the ball rolling, after all, which would be the disappearance of Tom Gruneman. Cioffi's character, Cable sent Klute on what Cable thought would be a wild goose chase which would lead one to conclude that Gruneman is the writer of the letters, who pursued sick relationships with prostitutes in New York City, and who killed 2 prostitutes prior to his own disappearance and/or suicide.
The second story is the story of how John Klute met Bree Daniels, and how they became very close to each other, something that Peter Cable did not anticipate.
As a coda to all of this, the exposure and ultimate demise of Peter Cable is what wraps up this unique tale.
[deleted]