would be better if...
this film would have been much better if it took place in 40's or 50's. this was obviously a noir film, why not make it take place in a noir setting. it didn't really work in modern time.
shareI disagree. Why does all noir need to be placed in the 40's or 50's? This story of this genre being placed in an 80's backdrop was genius. Stories are just stories and not necessarily accessible to people as having any connections to modern life if they are always viewed as they are...always viewed. The modern-day tale of Little Red Riding Hood starring Reese Witherspoon--Freeway--was similiar in that it is a familiar story set in an unfamiliar (and disconcerting) setting. Don't you think that part of the fun of watching movies is seeing things in a new perspective?
shareI think this film had an obvious noir context. It reminded me in some ways of China Town. I just think it was one of Steven Frears poorer films. He failed to build atmosphere and intrigue, he failed to create interest in the characters (perhaps a script fault). There was the occassional shot lit in the high key stlye of Noir, but generally it was visually poor. Noir is a genre and it doesn't have to be set in the 40's, 50's. I think part of the fun of watching films is seeing stories realised and rendered in a new way. This film just wasn't compelling like it could have been. The script lacked good dialogue. The psychological implications were interesting, but only a few scenes worked and only I suspect because of Angelica Huson's acting abilities. Duplicity, masculine failure, the oedipus complex, murder, ambition, femme fatales, desperation: all miserably housed in the artistry of an 80's tele movie. Bland at that. Watch Crimes and Misdemeanors or a Lynch film, China Town, Epidemic, Farewell my Lovely, anything but this, unless you would like to solve the puzzle of another film falling short of its mark.
shareI disagree with you on all counts.
I don't mind if you didn't like the film, that's surely anyone's prerogative. But I think you're off the mark in your criticism. There are more layers here than you're seeing.
For me, a long time fan of film noir (and of neo noir), this is one of the best of the newer noirs . In my mind (and in the minds of many critics), The Grifters boasted excellent direction from Frears and a super cast at the top of their game. The film is small scale - far from the operatic tone of Chinatown - but that makes it no less appealing to me.
The crux of this film is classic noir - lies and personal betrayal - built around a modern take on a classic noir conceit: passing for something you're not...in the grifter's case, passing for rich, passing for legit, passing for a friend or lover. The greed and self deception are, as I said, small scale, but no less potent for that.
I must presume from your comments on the dialong you are unfamiliar with the source material which is the Jim Thompson pulp novel of the same name. The script, by novelist Donald Westlake, did a fine job IMO of adapting dialogue straight from the book and expanding upon it. The script was sly and witty, yet hard and terse where it needed to be - focusing on the inner motivations of the characters. The film was also fun in a particularly Westlakian way very different from Thompson's novel e.g. Myra's flahback to the Texas con.
And I would hope that filmmakers could use whatever artistic means at their disposal to tell their story without slavishly adhering to a predetermined "noir" visual style. The way the sets were lit created exactly the mood that Frears was going for IMO.
Frears is not as dynamic a visual director as say the Cohens or David Lynch...but I believe one of the points of the films style and setting was to convey a slightly indeterminate sense of time and place to focus the audience on the characters...which it certainly did for me.
This is understated noir...a great, nasty little thriller for those who can appreciate it.
Well I'm pleased to hear that in your mind (and the mind of most critics) that the Grifters boasted excellent direction. However it still seems to me like a sunday matinee movie. Well with great actors, I'll concide that, and I still think they held the film up.
I agree that scale isn't the quetion... Noir can be on a large or small scale as you mentioned. Double Indemnity is on a domestic scale but still epic. China Town... while hardly operatic, is still a great film and a great script.
Perhaps for those who can appreciate a nasty little thriller like The Grifters, insights like knowing who wrote the spcript is important. The narrative and dialogue is obviously an important little oportunity of frisson for the connesiour. But experiencing the film without that level of appreciation leaves one a little dry.
Presume nothing. I judge the film on the basis of what I see and experience. It's not a lack of knowledge that inhibits my perception. Frears is not good with this kind of Film because he needs sypathetic characters. He is simply not good at the kind of wit and charm needed to elevate this film into something more that a maudlin Sunday Matinee. Woody Allen can top him in these stakes.
Understated or just not hitting the mark?
Tim Baines- I could not agree more. We're definitely in the minority. of course C&M is an absolute masterpiece, and owuld be unfair to compare it to somehitng as trivial as Grifters. i fully agree it had the atmosphere of a matinee movie, this just didn't grip me at all and I'm a big fan of the genre. I'd liketo add that early Mamet films, or even films like 9 Queens and Following were vastly superior to this.
myspace.com/bankrupteuropeans
Coz lifes too short to listen to Madlib
Agreed! I think it worked perfectly as is in the setting it was in.
It also is one of my favorite films to date.
~ Check me on IMDb at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3072171/ - Carpe Diem - Janice Marie Foote ~