Why Do I Subject Myself to These Things
Film 228
"Swinging with the Finkels"
starring: Mandy Moore, Martin Freeman, Jonathan Silverman
written and directed by: Jonathon Newman
Are we supposed to care about yet another couple who seems to be having problems? Especially when those problems stem from not being able to communicate with each other about what's wrong! It's marriage between a young couple facing an apparent "7 year itch" that is the focus of this drab film.
Marriage has been ingrained in us as that "necessary evil" that we should all be striving for in our lives; it's why we get into relationships- to find and figure out if we can see ourselves with this one person for the rest of our lives, devoted to each other, through thick and thin, helping each other through the drag and pull of relationship gravity.
Here, we have Ellie and Alvin (Mandy Moore and Martin Freeman, respectively) who are the happily married couple prior to the actual starting point of the film. Or so we are supposed to believe. It starts right in with their problem: relationship ennui (I just love that word) and self-destruction. They are not having sex, Alvin's complaint (typical guy). They no longer have intimacy, Ellie's complaint (typical lady). We find this out through yet another typical scene- they are talking to their respective best friends about their sides of the story, as far as their marriage. Again, I reiterate, this entire thing could all be avoided if they were just open and honest with each other! So, what do they try instead? To spice things up, Ellie buys some lingerie and Alvin gets a fireman's uniform. Really? For one night only!? And then they try couples-swapping (hence, the swinging in the title), to back their marriage back to life.
Oh yeah, and then Ellie tries something a little more risky- masturbating with a cucumber. Now, having "known" Mandy Moore since she was 15 or 16 years old and seeing her grow up throughout these years, it was just weird and awkward to watch her simulate this on screen. Kudos for trying. And then her in-laws walk in with their son, Ellie's husband. This entire turn of events really speaks to the awkwardness of the entire film. And again, I ask why are we supposed to care about these two people with such a common problem? What makes their problem better or more significant? Nothing! It's not an enjoyable film because it portrays something that follows such a typical and formulaic plot in marriage films. Problem-Tried Solutions-Retry-Come Out Stronger and Happier Together. It's all bullshit, but that's my opinion. It's filled with cliche after cliche. It follows a predictable story arc after the problem is discussed and solutions are tried. The man loses his wife, the man tries to get her back, they miss each other, they find each other again and come together better, stronger, happier. Everyone here sort of goes through the motions. I've seen Mandy Moore in better indie films and I wonder if she was just doing this for a paycheck, because I cannot believe that she actually thought this was a good idea. I don't care about people or couples on screen who just seem completely stupid and naive to reality. Talk to each other!
..............................................................
Film 229
"Beautiful Creatures"
starring: Rachel Weisz, Susan Lynch, Iain Glen
Going along with the theme of "Who cares?" is one of Rachel Weisz earliest films. Coming out of Scotland, "Beautiful Creatures" decides to turn a gender-specific film expectation on its head, slightly, but in actuality, not at all. Dorothy and Petula (Susan Lynch and Rachel Weisz, respectively) are the titled "Beautiful Creatures" who basically get away with acting violently and vengeful simply because they are attractive women who have been and are beaten around by the man in the film. We've been taught or conditioned to believe that women who become violent and seek revenge on men are strong, while remaining feminine. But in reality, it is because they are using their femininity that allows them to basically get away with murder- at least that's what happens in this film. And let's just take a moment to talk about how completely different Rachel Weisz looks as a bleached (?) blonde in this film. Holy cow! I guess, with all that said, the film would have been received completely differently if instead of calling it "Beautiful Creatures" they'd titled it "Hideous Monsters." But, for argument's sake, let's say the two lead characters had been guys, it would have been a completely different type of film- one that guys embraced, for its perceived violent tendencies. But, then again, women might appreciate it for its women-taking-charge-of-their-lives aspect. It didn't work for me, though, because it all seemed too far-fetched and scheming.
Dorothy (Lynch) is with quite a loser who treats her like shit. But, she chose him. He's a junkie and a golfer (weird combo because both activities separately require a lot of money, so together, they are extremely expensive habits). Together, they are both morally bankrupt characters and sort of deserve each other. I'm just saying! I've met my fair share of these types of people and they are perfect together.
Dorothy meets Petula, by chance, after storming from her place because her idiot boyfriend has treated her like shit for the last time (oh yeah, he dyed her white dog reddish-pink and boiled her bras?! really?!), and crossing paths with a domestic violence scene between Petula and her angry boyfriend. They've had a confrontation in the car, but all Dorothy sees is another asshole-of-a-man beating on his beautiful girlfriend. Why is this happening? We don't really get an explanation, other than to show us that men are violent and therefore evil. Dorothy slams Brian (Petula's boyfriend) with a giant street pipe and they drag with back to her place where he eventually dies. Great! Now they've committed murder together, a new female bonding experience in films, I guess. But also, look at "Thelma and Louise" for another reference point of female-empowerment gone slightly too far. In both films the women have committed violent acts that are morally justified because they are females and let's face it, more often than not, men are portrayed as monsters in films (and in life, I suppose).
The film is supposed to be a bit of film noir and black comedy, mixed together, because the women are on the run from the dead man's brother as well as trying to evade the detectives (men) who are hot on their trail and know they are responsible. Sure, there is some dark humor that works some of the time, but altogether, it missed the mark for me. I certainly got the point it was trying to make- that women deserve accolades for standing up for themselves and can be just as violent as men when pushed to the brink. Morally of the story: treat your lady with respect, or else!
..................................................................
Film 230
"Here"
starring: Ben Foster and Lubna Azabal
written and directed by: Braden King
There are a few things wrong with this experimental, avant-garde indie film.
1) it is far too long, especially for what it accomplishes over the 2+ hours it runs
2) it has pointless interludes that for all intents and purposes, that I could tell, had really nothing to do with moving the story along, and actually broke up the story so that it felt disjointed, in order to just simply come off slightly more pretentious than it already was appearing to be
3) At its core, the film is supposed to be a "romance" but it never actually ignites a spark that we as an audience feel or see
4) As a romance it is supposed to unite two unlikely souls who are polar opposites, which, yes, creates some conflict along the way, but, again, there's no spark or flame to which this conflict is supposed to play against, and thus, bring these two unlikely people together even closer towards the end of the film
5) There really is no conflict throughout the entire film- even though it is set in a foreign country, Armenia- perhaps the filmmakers should have chosen a more war-torn country. Instead, we just get the vast and expansive, beautiful landscape of Armenia as the background. Yes, the couple run into some Passport trouble as they near the border of Armenia, but even that is solved far too quickly and easily. The patrolman even slides the bribe money back. Really?! You're trying to tell me these guys are not as corrupt as other countries!?
The couple in question are Will Shepard and Garadine (played with intentional reserve by Ben Foster and Lubna Azabal). Will is an American satellite-mapping cartographer who has come to Armenia to match satellite readings to the actual landscape. A road-trip. Garadine is a freelance photographer who has been away from her homeland for a multiple-years hiatus (which is brought up by her family). They meet in a hotel, one morning, during breakfast. Garadine offers her helpful services to Will, who is a lost foreign, who can only speak English. They get in Will's car and develop a bumpy relationship throughout their road trip together. They make several, obligatory pit-stops along the way, meet up with some conflict (both personal and professional), but ultimately make it to the end of their journey together, in one piece.
For a road trip film, especially in a foreign country, where one person (Will) is introverted and the other is the free-spirited, extrovert (Garadine) you'd expect more heat generated between the two of them, but you never get it. They do end up having sex, after a heated exchange, in Will's car, but even that is cut short and is simply implied by the filmmaker.
I thought it was a lackluster attempt at a provocative film that could have done more with much less, in time and space. I was disappointed.
.........................................................................
Film 231
"Killer Joe"
starring: Matthew McConaughey, Emile Hirsch, Juno Temple, Thomas Haden Church, Gina Gershon
directed by: William Friedkin
written by: Tracy Letts (screenplay and play)
I've been reading a lot of reviews for this film in which many of them are positive and the reviewers really enjoyed the film. I did not, in general and overall, as a whole entity, the film failed to capture many things about it that I knew about it. Perhaps this is because I went to see a stage performance of it a couple of years ago, at SPACE gallery. Yes, it was a local theatre performance, but I thought it was one of the best plays I'd been to. It was very, very dark. It had moments of comedy, in all the right spots. And the actors were beyond stellar in each role, which was probably extremely hard to do, because each character has a deeper, darker history that they all probably had to tap into in order to portray their respective characters just right. It all worked for me, though, back then, on the stage. And I think there was something disconnected along the way from bringing it from the stage to the screen. There was definitely a lot lost along that path, which is unfortunate, because I really wanted to enjoy and like it, as a film. Maybe my expectations were set too high, because I saw the play first and it blew me away. You know, it's kind of like reading one of your favorite books and then hearing it's being turned into a movie, and you are fearful that the film will really disappoint you (re: The Great Gatsby, for a most recent reference). You want the book to remain untouched, because the book allows you to create the movie in your mind. When you see someone else's interpretation of that, it severely screws you up and disappoints you, not to mention, even maybe makes you look at the whole story differently.
That all being said, I did not like what the director and the actors chosen for such interesting characters did with the story I thoroughly enjoyed the first time. The screenplay writer, interestingly enough, is the same person who wrote the play- good choice I suppose, and maybe it was the only catch to getting this film produced. I'm glad no one else was allowed to taint the story. Tracy Letts' words and tone really move the story. Unfortunately, the actors did not get it. I think the biggest reason why I didn't like this film is because it seems like ALL the wrong actors for the roles. Let's look at the family of redneck idiots:
Chris (played by Emile Hirsch, whom I really really liked as Chris McCandless in "Into the Wild" but in everything else I really think he's miscast) is the boy in debt to drug dealers. Chris owes thousands of dollars to these drug dealers, who are at the end of their forgiveness-rope with him. He hatches a plan to hire a contract killer (Killer Joe) to kill his mother, because she was a wealthy $50,000 life insurance policy. Chris gets his the rest of his family on board (dad, stepmom, and sister) as well as Killer Joe, even though he is a real idiot and not a believable smooth-talker. I'm convinced Chris wouldn't have been able to talk his way out of a paperbag, let alone convince everyone that killing someone for money was the best idea- Ever! Emile Hirsch really doesn't do Chris justice as a redneck, in trouble. I never liked him or felt bad for him, I guess, that's what should happen.
Thomas Haden Church (from "Sideways" and "Spiderman 3" as well as the 90s television show "Wings") plays the equally dim-witted patriarch who ultimately gets duped into following along with the scheme. He is sort of a secondary character that is never really fleshed out on the screen in his scenes. Too bad, because I think a lot of his "baggage" could've helped explain the story of his children, as well as his relationship with his new wife.
Speaking of his new wife, Gina Gershon (infamous for her role in "Bound") plays Sharla, who ends up being much more conniving than we are led to believe from the beginning. Sure, she shows up on the screen, bearing her below-the-belt private parts (okay, I'll say it, for lack of any better terms, hairy vagina). She's naked from the waist down, and ends up being the most exposed and abused individual in the entire film (which is saying a lot because this story/film is very graphic- in fact it received an NC-17 rating). Sharla gets beaten to a pulp and is forced to perform oral sex on a chicken leg by Killer Joe, after all is said and done, after the real plot is revealed towards the end of the film. Gershon definitely deserves accolades for putting everything she's got into this despicable woman. She's the most intriguing character in the entire film, because you want to know her motivation, for everything that she does.
Dottie (played by Juno Temple) is Chris' virginal sister, who is portrayed as a simpleton, who may actually be slightly mentally handicapped. You can tell she lives in her head, but there is definitely a lot more under the surface that drives her. Unfortunately, Juno Temple's portrayal doesn't really dig deeper than the surface for any of us. And maybe I'm able to say all this because I actually now work with the girl who portrayed her in the stage production of "Killer Joe" that I saw at SPACE gallery. Being an actor, you are supposed to look for your character's motivation. You are supposed to really bring the baggage into the performance, and give the character much more depth than performance just the words and stage direction give you. And I think this girl did an unbelievable job with such an interesting character as Dottie. I mean, why does Dottie agree that "Killing mom seems like a good idea," other than "she hasn't really done much good for anyone." That's very Albert Camus circa "The Stranger" of her, but how can a rather mentally retarded girl come to such a conclusion? Perhaps because she's actually more than that. The film doesn't really allow us to think that way though.
And then, there's Killer Joe (played by Matthew McConaughey, who, yes, does give a decent, reserved and quiet bad guy effort on screen, but I just think was the wrong guy for the role). Killer Joe is the paid hitman-for-hire who seems to moonlight as a badass cop in the Texas town he seems to run. There is an eerie stillness to Killer Joe that every time he speaks, you are expected to listen. He demands your attention. He's a smart guy (requiring money upfront). So, why then does he seem to get duped by perhaps the dumbest, redneck, Texas family in history? Perhaps because he takes an immediate liking to simpleton Dottie (whom he wants for himself). He accepts her as his retainer, instead of payment upfront, for the first time, because he wants her. And what Joe wants, Joe gets. That's made perfectly clear.
I loved the play too much to enjoy the film version of the story. But, I think, if you've never seen the play and you like dark, twisted murderous stories, told in the most graphic fashion, you will really enjoy this film. Maybe watch it with lower expectations than I had, because as a performance piece, the story is incredible. I wanted to like it, a lot, but unfortunately I didn't get to pick the actors for the roles as I saw fit.
"Swinging with the Finkels"
starring: Mandy Moore, Martin Freeman, Jonathan Silverman
written and directed by: Jonathon Newman
Are we supposed to care about yet another couple who seems to be having problems? Especially when those problems stem from not being able to communicate with each other about what's wrong! It's marriage between a young couple facing an apparent "7 year itch" that is the focus of this drab film.
Marriage has been ingrained in us as that "necessary evil" that we should all be striving for in our lives; it's why we get into relationships- to find and figure out if we can see ourselves with this one person for the rest of our lives, devoted to each other, through thick and thin, helping each other through the drag and pull of relationship gravity.
Here, we have Ellie and Alvin (Mandy Moore and Martin Freeman, respectively) who are the happily married couple prior to the actual starting point of the film. Or so we are supposed to believe. It starts right in with their problem: relationship ennui (I just love that word) and self-destruction. They are not having sex, Alvin's complaint (typical guy). They no longer have intimacy, Ellie's complaint (typical lady). We find this out through yet another typical scene- they are talking to their respective best friends about their sides of the story, as far as their marriage. Again, I reiterate, this entire thing could all be avoided if they were just open and honest with each other! So, what do they try instead? To spice things up, Ellie buys some lingerie and Alvin gets a fireman's uniform. Really? For one night only!? And then they try couples-swapping (hence, the swinging in the title), to back their marriage back to life.
Oh yeah, and then Ellie tries something a little more risky- masturbating with a cucumber. Now, having "known" Mandy Moore since she was 15 or 16 years old and seeing her grow up throughout these years, it was just weird and awkward to watch her simulate this on screen. Kudos for trying. And then her in-laws walk in with their son, Ellie's husband. This entire turn of events really speaks to the awkwardness of the entire film. And again, I ask why are we supposed to care about these two people with such a common problem? What makes their problem better or more significant? Nothing! It's not an enjoyable film because it portrays something that follows such a typical and formulaic plot in marriage films. Problem-Tried Solutions-Retry-Come Out Stronger and Happier Together. It's all bullshit, but that's my opinion. It's filled with cliche after cliche. It follows a predictable story arc after the problem is discussed and solutions are tried. The man loses his wife, the man tries to get her back, they miss each other, they find each other again and come together better, stronger, happier. Everyone here sort of goes through the motions. I've seen Mandy Moore in better indie films and I wonder if she was just doing this for a paycheck, because I cannot believe that she actually thought this was a good idea. I don't care about people or couples on screen who just seem completely stupid and naive to reality. Talk to each other!
..............................................................
Film 229
"Beautiful Creatures"
starring: Rachel Weisz, Susan Lynch, Iain Glen
Going along with the theme of "Who cares?" is one of Rachel Weisz earliest films. Coming out of Scotland, "Beautiful Creatures" decides to turn a gender-specific film expectation on its head, slightly, but in actuality, not at all. Dorothy and Petula (Susan Lynch and Rachel Weisz, respectively) are the titled "Beautiful Creatures" who basically get away with acting violently and vengeful simply because they are attractive women who have been and are beaten around by the man in the film. We've been taught or conditioned to believe that women who become violent and seek revenge on men are strong, while remaining feminine. But in reality, it is because they are using their femininity that allows them to basically get away with murder- at least that's what happens in this film. And let's just take a moment to talk about how completely different Rachel Weisz looks as a bleached (?) blonde in this film. Holy cow! I guess, with all that said, the film would have been received completely differently if instead of calling it "Beautiful Creatures" they'd titled it "Hideous Monsters." But, for argument's sake, let's say the two lead characters had been guys, it would have been a completely different type of film- one that guys embraced, for its perceived violent tendencies. But, then again, women might appreciate it for its women-taking-charge-of-their-lives aspect. It didn't work for me, though, because it all seemed too far-fetched and scheming.
Dorothy (Lynch) is with quite a loser who treats her like shit. But, she chose him. He's a junkie and a golfer (weird combo because both activities separately require a lot of money, so together, they are extremely expensive habits). Together, they are both morally bankrupt characters and sort of deserve each other. I'm just saying! I've met my fair share of these types of people and they are perfect together.
Dorothy meets Petula, by chance, after storming from her place because her idiot boyfriend has treated her like shit for the last time (oh yeah, he dyed her white dog reddish-pink and boiled her bras?! really?!), and crossing paths with a domestic violence scene between Petula and her angry boyfriend. They've had a confrontation in the car, but all Dorothy sees is another asshole-of-a-man beating on his beautiful girlfriend. Why is this happening? We don't really get an explanation, other than to show us that men are violent and therefore evil. Dorothy slams Brian (Petula's boyfriend) with a giant street pipe and they drag with back to her place where he eventually dies. Great! Now they've committed murder together, a new female bonding experience in films, I guess. But also, look at "Thelma and Louise" for another reference point of female-empowerment gone slightly too far. In both films the women have committed violent acts that are morally justified because they are females and let's face it, more often than not, men are portrayed as monsters in films (and in life, I suppose).
The film is supposed to be a bit of film noir and black comedy, mixed together, because the women are on the run from the dead man's brother as well as trying to evade the detectives (men) who are hot on their trail and know they are responsible. Sure, there is some dark humor that works some of the time, but altogether, it missed the mark for me. I certainly got the point it was trying to make- that women deserve accolades for standing up for themselves and can be just as violent as men when pushed to the brink. Morally of the story: treat your lady with respect, or else!
..................................................................
Film 230
"Here"
starring: Ben Foster and Lubna Azabal
written and directed by: Braden King
There are a few things wrong with this experimental, avant-garde indie film.
1) it is far too long, especially for what it accomplishes over the 2+ hours it runs
2) it has pointless interludes that for all intents and purposes, that I could tell, had really nothing to do with moving the story along, and actually broke up the story so that it felt disjointed, in order to just simply come off slightly more pretentious than it already was appearing to be
3) At its core, the film is supposed to be a "romance" but it never actually ignites a spark that we as an audience feel or see
4) As a romance it is supposed to unite two unlikely souls who are polar opposites, which, yes, creates some conflict along the way, but, again, there's no spark or flame to which this conflict is supposed to play against, and thus, bring these two unlikely people together even closer towards the end of the film
5) There really is no conflict throughout the entire film- even though it is set in a foreign country, Armenia- perhaps the filmmakers should have chosen a more war-torn country. Instead, we just get the vast and expansive, beautiful landscape of Armenia as the background. Yes, the couple run into some Passport trouble as they near the border of Armenia, but even that is solved far too quickly and easily. The patrolman even slides the bribe money back. Really?! You're trying to tell me these guys are not as corrupt as other countries!?
The couple in question are Will Shepard and Garadine (played with intentional reserve by Ben Foster and Lubna Azabal). Will is an American satellite-mapping cartographer who has come to Armenia to match satellite readings to the actual landscape. A road-trip. Garadine is a freelance photographer who has been away from her homeland for a multiple-years hiatus (which is brought up by her family). They meet in a hotel, one morning, during breakfast. Garadine offers her helpful services to Will, who is a lost foreign, who can only speak English. They get in Will's car and develop a bumpy relationship throughout their road trip together. They make several, obligatory pit-stops along the way, meet up with some conflict (both personal and professional), but ultimately make it to the end of their journey together, in one piece.
For a road trip film, especially in a foreign country, where one person (Will) is introverted and the other is the free-spirited, extrovert (Garadine) you'd expect more heat generated between the two of them, but you never get it. They do end up having sex, after a heated exchange, in Will's car, but even that is cut short and is simply implied by the filmmaker.
I thought it was a lackluster attempt at a provocative film that could have done more with much less, in time and space. I was disappointed.
.........................................................................
Film 231
"Killer Joe"
starring: Matthew McConaughey, Emile Hirsch, Juno Temple, Thomas Haden Church, Gina Gershon
directed by: William Friedkin
written by: Tracy Letts (screenplay and play)
I've been reading a lot of reviews for this film in which many of them are positive and the reviewers really enjoyed the film. I did not, in general and overall, as a whole entity, the film failed to capture many things about it that I knew about it. Perhaps this is because I went to see a stage performance of it a couple of years ago, at SPACE gallery. Yes, it was a local theatre performance, but I thought it was one of the best plays I'd been to. It was very, very dark. It had moments of comedy, in all the right spots. And the actors were beyond stellar in each role, which was probably extremely hard to do, because each character has a deeper, darker history that they all probably had to tap into in order to portray their respective characters just right. It all worked for me, though, back then, on the stage. And I think there was something disconnected along the way from bringing it from the stage to the screen. There was definitely a lot lost along that path, which is unfortunate, because I really wanted to enjoy and like it, as a film. Maybe my expectations were set too high, because I saw the play first and it blew me away. You know, it's kind of like reading one of your favorite books and then hearing it's being turned into a movie, and you are fearful that the film will really disappoint you (re: The Great Gatsby, for a most recent reference). You want the book to remain untouched, because the book allows you to create the movie in your mind. When you see someone else's interpretation of that, it severely screws you up and disappoints you, not to mention, even maybe makes you look at the whole story differently.
That all being said, I did not like what the director and the actors chosen for such interesting characters did with the story I thoroughly enjoyed the first time. The screenplay writer, interestingly enough, is the same person who wrote the play- good choice I suppose, and maybe it was the only catch to getting this film produced. I'm glad no one else was allowed to taint the story. Tracy Letts' words and tone really move the story. Unfortunately, the actors did not get it. I think the biggest reason why I didn't like this film is because it seems like ALL the wrong actors for the roles. Let's look at the family of redneck idiots:
Chris (played by Emile Hirsch, whom I really really liked as Chris McCandless in "Into the Wild" but in everything else I really think he's miscast) is the boy in debt to drug dealers. Chris owes thousands of dollars to these drug dealers, who are at the end of their forgiveness-rope with him. He hatches a plan to hire a contract killer (Killer Joe) to kill his mother, because she was a wealthy $50,000 life insurance policy. Chris gets his the rest of his family on board (dad, stepmom, and sister) as well as Killer Joe, even though he is a real idiot and not a believable smooth-talker. I'm convinced Chris wouldn't have been able to talk his way out of a paperbag, let alone convince everyone that killing someone for money was the best idea- Ever! Emile Hirsch really doesn't do Chris justice as a redneck, in trouble. I never liked him or felt bad for him, I guess, that's what should happen.
Thomas Haden Church (from "Sideways" and "Spiderman 3" as well as the 90s television show "Wings") plays the equally dim-witted patriarch who ultimately gets duped into following along with the scheme. He is sort of a secondary character that is never really fleshed out on the screen in his scenes. Too bad, because I think a lot of his "baggage" could've helped explain the story of his children, as well as his relationship with his new wife.
Speaking of his new wife, Gina Gershon (infamous for her role in "Bound") plays Sharla, who ends up being much more conniving than we are led to believe from the beginning. Sure, she shows up on the screen, bearing her below-the-belt private parts (okay, I'll say it, for lack of any better terms, hairy vagina). She's naked from the waist down, and ends up being the most exposed and abused individual in the entire film (which is saying a lot because this story/film is very graphic- in fact it received an NC-17 rating). Sharla gets beaten to a pulp and is forced to perform oral sex on a chicken leg by Killer Joe, after all is said and done, after the real plot is revealed towards the end of the film. Gershon definitely deserves accolades for putting everything she's got into this despicable woman. She's the most intriguing character in the entire film, because you want to know her motivation, for everything that she does.
Dottie (played by Juno Temple) is Chris' virginal sister, who is portrayed as a simpleton, who may actually be slightly mentally handicapped. You can tell she lives in her head, but there is definitely a lot more under the surface that drives her. Unfortunately, Juno Temple's portrayal doesn't really dig deeper than the surface for any of us. And maybe I'm able to say all this because I actually now work with the girl who portrayed her in the stage production of "Killer Joe" that I saw at SPACE gallery. Being an actor, you are supposed to look for your character's motivation. You are supposed to really bring the baggage into the performance, and give the character much more depth than performance just the words and stage direction give you. And I think this girl did an unbelievable job with such an interesting character as Dottie. I mean, why does Dottie agree that "Killing mom seems like a good idea," other than "she hasn't really done much good for anyone." That's very Albert Camus circa "The Stranger" of her, but how can a rather mentally retarded girl come to such a conclusion? Perhaps because she's actually more than that. The film doesn't really allow us to think that way though.
And then, there's Killer Joe (played by Matthew McConaughey, who, yes, does give a decent, reserved and quiet bad guy effort on screen, but I just think was the wrong guy for the role). Killer Joe is the paid hitman-for-hire who seems to moonlight as a badass cop in the Texas town he seems to run. There is an eerie stillness to Killer Joe that every time he speaks, you are expected to listen. He demands your attention. He's a smart guy (requiring money upfront). So, why then does he seem to get duped by perhaps the dumbest, redneck, Texas family in history? Perhaps because he takes an immediate liking to simpleton Dottie (whom he wants for himself). He accepts her as his retainer, instead of payment upfront, for the first time, because he wants her. And what Joe wants, Joe gets. That's made perfectly clear.
I loved the play too much to enjoy the film version of the story. But, I think, if you've never seen the play and you like dark, twisted murderous stories, told in the most graphic fashion, you will really enjoy this film. Maybe watch it with lower expectations than I had, because as a performance piece, the story is incredible. I wanted to like it, a lot, but unfortunately I didn't get to pick the actors for the roles as I saw fit.
Comments
Post a Comment