12/13/2004

Further

goldenfiddle asked our favorite film scholar, friend, and unrecognized bastard child of Roger Ebert, Leroy Street, to review Mike Nichols’ new depressfest-oscar-hopeful, Closer, since we have no plans on buying a ticket to anything that has Julia Roberts in it… ever. Enjoy!

The only thing separating Closer -Mike Nichols’ new pronunciational and filmic nightmare- from the experience of losing your soap opera virginity by starting half-way through the Days of Our Lives Three Hour Special is Clive Owen. That and the fact that Julia Roberts, Jude Law and Natalie Portman would never do Days anymore. Nichols, who has magically maintained genius status despite “What Planet Are You From?” throws us immediately into a sex rectangle without paying homage to film’s time-honored tradition of character development. Boy meets girl, another boy meets girl through boy who met another girl, and then we settle down to an hour and a half of dialogue like, “did you fuck him,” “yes,” “was it good,” “I prefer you.” And we’re supposed to be shocked by the bluntness, by the inhumanity of the interaction—“oh my god, how could you just switch from Dan to Larry so easily?!” But we don’t give a donkey shit because the characters are inhuman from the very start, so it just seems characteristic of these blunt, wooden puppets we’ll never connect to, never care about. And that’s it. That’s the fundamental flaw that dooms the picture immediately. Never mind the gimmicky “It’s a sex film with no sex!” and “we’ll play with the elasticity of time because betrayal watches no clock!” You never care about Julia Roberts, except for the time when she’s about to smile, and you’re screaming NO! not the lip!! You never care about Natalie Portman, until she’s in a thong you want her to take off. You never care about Jude Law, the self-charmer who is now invariably described by The New Yorker in every role as a “hangdog.” And you never really care about Clive Owen—despite the fact that he’s obviously a great actor polishing shit—until he channels Spader and emasculates Jude Law in a scene simply by calling him a “writer.” That was awesome. But it’s not enough. Don’t go. And I don’t mean “don’t go,” like “don’t go see “Showgirls.” You’ll never come within fifty miles of that cold, heart-blackening sickness Neil Labute serves up every time. If anyone gives you some “yeah—it’s Company of Men meets Friends and Neighbors, served cold with a Mamet reduction,” slap them hard and walk away. Otherwise, you’ll go, and you’ll just want to leave like the smarter people in front of you. You’ll just want to take your popcorn and your Sprite—and not forget your sweater this time—and walk with your boygirlfriend in that silence that’s the void of two hours and thirty dollars leaving your life, thinking how much Steve Zissou can make you back next week, as you roll down the sidewalk toward the sunset in the friscalating dusklight.

Leroy Street

bobbit worm 12/13/2004 @ 10:37 pm

suck on this http://www.vibrantsea.net/bobbit7_anilao18.htm

feint 12/14/2004 @ 6:35 am

ace! give the man a regluar slot.

Willful Exposé 12/14/2004 @ 6:56 am

I’m convinced. That was beautiful.

nasdaq jones 12/14/2004 @ 8:47 am

ATL reprazent

erin 12/14/2004 @ 9:20 am

thank God for the Tennanbaums reference, if anyone can save us it is anderson.

“maybe he didn’t?”

Jeff 12/14/2004 @ 11:08 am

Very well written, but off the mark in my opinion. The characters were irrelevant in Closer…the point was to look directly at the raw human emotions and the balance between truth and lies we ALL deal with. Their anonymity made them more relatable. Others who have seen the movie would likely agree. That’s kind of the whole point of the quasi-twist at the end. No matter how much you think you know somebody, you barely know anything. Making deep and complex characters would have defeated the purpose.

Also, Wes Anderson’s latest is complete garbage. I’d like to hear this wunderkid Leroy Street try and defend it.

jwr 12/14/2004 @ 11:27 am

to make “no matter how much you think you know somebody, you barely know anything” point, you’ve got to have characters that other characters (and most importantly, the audience) thinks they know. that’s sort of integral to the “no matter how much you think you know somebody” part of the idea. then, when you get to the betrayal or blurring of lines with lies, you realize the second half of it, the “you barely know anything” part. i think that’s what leroy’s saying, and what labute does. and that’s why his endings aren’t just quasi-twists.

beebs 12/14/2004 @ 12:45 pm

it’s Company of Men meets Friends and Neighbors, served cold with a Mamet reduction,

Bwaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Excellent!

cas 12/14/2004 @ 12:50 pm

Jeff you need to turn off your U2 iPod and get off the glue. Zissou is legit and, while I haven’t seen Closer, “character development defeating the purpose of the film” is absurd.

Please never defend a Julia Roberts flick over Wes Anderson. You should be ashamed.

britpoppa 12/14/2004 @ 2:33 pm

guess i’m a douche, because i enjoyed the movie. i thought natalie portman was pretty great and also likeable. it’s the first time she’s lived up to her hype since leon, aka the professional.

the clicker 12/14/2004 @ 3:19 pm

Nice one Leroy. You took the words right out of my mouth even though I have not seen the movie.

Paging Senor Fiddle: Are you planning on telling me what’s going on in the world, err?

D. Sawyer 12/14/2004 @ 3:39 pm

Street seems to be missing the point of Closer, and more directly, what Nichols achieved in his adaptation of Closer. As someone who wasn’t expecting much, I hardly found the film amazing, but given the somewhat flawed script that Nichols was given to work with—to be credited, however, for creating something more than an over-simplified battle of the sexes—the movie was the best it could be. The “blunt, woodenness” of the characters and the shallow portrait we are given of each is obviously intended to reflect the level and depth of the relationships they have with one another. Nichols doesn’t make the jv mistake of deviating from the play’s script and creating expository scenes to provide “character development”; that would have turned the story from a thought-provoking meditation on the mechanics of relationships into an Anne Tyler-drivel-inspired character study of “damaged souls”. Nichols also did a fantastic job of getting appropriately stark, spartan performances from actors whose larger than life personas could otherwise distract from the stark, spartan material. And kudos to Clive Owen for not turning his rage scenes into laughable tirades that were the hallmark of Jason Patric’s performance in LaBute’s Your Friends are From Mars and Your Neighbors are From Venus.

dogface boy 12/14/2004 @ 4:09 pm

GO d. sawyer!! you rock. I love it, and you make such fabu points. It was undoubtedly a crowd jerker of a topic fiddle…good job!

I'm a peein, european 12/14/2004 @ 4:28 pm

Great review Leroy! I see you have inspired some others to grab their thesaurus in attempt to further analysize.

In other non-Julia news, while Laguna Beach Season 1 was a total suck-sesh, I am actually looking forward to season 2. After all, it was LC and Stephen that sucked so much and they are away at school. I can’t wait for new girl to fuck some of Kristen’s shit up!

sweetpea 12/14/2004 @ 4:29 pm

I rarely go by the reviews..but in saying dont go see it as in dont go see showgirls HAS got me a little spooked

AlexisT 12/14/2004 @ 4:30 pm

All I have to say is this:

I like your name. Nice ring to it!

Online Casinos 5/2/2006 @ 9:20 am

vegas casinos, grand casinos, casinos, new casinos, play casinos, jackpot casinos, casino, betting, all casinos, best casinos, real casinos, bonus casinos, gambling, virtual betting, internet betting, virtual gambling, top casino, casino directory, new casino, online gambling, casino money, casino game, best casino, free casino, new virtual casino, new online casino, online casinogame, best virtual casino, gambling game, virtual casino, internet casino,