
E-MAIL THE AUTHOR | ARCHIVES
STRANGE IMPERSONATION
By Kim Morgan
December 9, 2004
Get A Little Closer...Don't be Shy
Mike Nichols could be considered a pioneer in the cinematic genre of
relationship dysfunction. His debut film, the adaptation of Edward Albee's
brilliant WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF, was alternately cringe-making,
hilarious, stupendously nasty and by film's end, tragically romantic. It's
also delicious, morbid fun. That is, if the game "Get the Guests" sounds
like a kick (which will give you a clue as to what kind of person you are).
When I saw the film at 18 in film class, my professor stated: "You need to
watch this every three years of your life. Each time, you'll understand it
more." He was right. Each time I watch WOOLF, a movie in which I have lines
memorized, I have to check my sanity for a second. I see my future in these
characters. But rather than recoil at the prospect of becoming a washed-up
academic lush, I'm oddly comforted by the idea. I'd rather be in an
alcoholic, childless marriage, yelling "Hey swampy!" at my husband who,
rightfully, scares the shit out of me by pretending to shoot me (tit for tat
and tat for tit as Eli Wallach said in BABY DOLL) than drive kids to soccer
practice. Causing Sandy Dennis a nervous breakdown is a better decision than
who needs to bring baked goods to the church sale. And attempting to lay a
young George Segal, then mocking him as houseboy is a better story to share
with your husband than what happened at the grocery store. Call me sick, but
I'm not concerned. Though I do wonder which one I will become -- George or
Martha?
I don't however, feel heartened by Nichols' later dip into gender psychosis,
his other masterstroke, 1971's CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, a minefield of depressing
liaison malfunction. Not only do we see a luscious, vivacious Ann-Margret
turn into a chubby, suicidal slob begging for employment, anything to get
her out of her depression, but we must witness, both horrified and
impressed, Jack Nicholson's tirade against her:
"You want a job? I got a job for you. Fix up this pigsty! You get a pretty
Goddammed good salary for testing out this bed all day! You want an extra
fifty dollars a week, try vacuuming! You want an extra hundred, make this
Goddammed bed! Try opening some Goddammed windows! That's why you can't
stand up in here; the Goddammed place smells like a coffin!"
And then, this gorgeous bit of acerbity:
"Is this an ultimatum? Answer me, you ball-busting, castrating, son of a
cunt bitch! Is this an ultimatum or not?"
Jesus Christ. It still holds up as one of the ugliest fights put to
celluloid. Unlike WOOLF, there was no romance here -- not even an off-
kilter one. There was, simply, confusion over Candice Bergen and then,
carnal needs for Margret's heaving bosom turning to disgust. At least you
know George and Martha are bound to each other. Not so in CARNAL KNOWLEDGE.
These people are hopeless and alone. True love, even lust is not
everlasting. Men age and harden, women age and become crazy. Clinical blow
job for Nicholson and, cut. End of story.
So, it's most refreshing, after a long stint of mainstream Hollywood
features, that Nichols has returned to the viciousness and fragility of the
human heart. CLOSER, a film that's been knocked around some, is welcome
simply for Nichols journeying back into his earlier area of expertise (I
mean, let's forget about WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM). Though certainly flawedand nowhere near the brilliance of WOOF, KNOWLEDGE or THE GRADUATE, CLOSER
has some potent observations and performances that, at best, stick with you
past your reflective ride home.
From Patrick Marber's stage play, CLOSER has the claustrophobic trapping
of
a dramatic adaptation, though, in this case, it feels appropriate. These are
characters strangled and trapped by baffled, noxious ennui (if you could
even call it ennui) and their faces are fixed in either perma-torture or
glib toxicity. These are sadists and masochists in pure form, much like Neil
LaBute's discontented, frequently funny characters (LaBute was, not
surprisingly, greatly influenced by Nichols' CARNAL KNOWLEDGE)-- skilled
liars who seek the truth, what happiness could ever come from such a fusion?
None.
Opening with an ominous bit of love at first sight, Londoner Dan (Jude Law)
a struggling writer stuck penning obituary items, rescues a self-proclaimed
waif, ex-stripper Alice, (Natalie Portman) from an accident, taking her to
the hospital where their flirtation will no doubt lead to sex or, in the
film's span of years, a live-in relationship. The next scene is much less
romantic, but the clincher to an eventual foursome of misery. Dan, before
rumpled and befuddled, is noticeably confident as he gets his picture taken
by photographer Anna (Julia Roberts) a grim-faced woman he's attracted to.
He's about to have his novel (all about Alice's life) published and he's
feeling somewhat cocky about his potentially loftier position in the world.
He hits on Anna with abandon, and the divorcee cannot resist. Though she
steams over the fact he's attached to this lovely little creature, his muse.
Rightfully, how do you trust a man like that?
But as Woody Allen said, "The heart wants what it wants" and, though shot
down, Anna's desire never leaves her. Nevertheless, in a spiteful bit of
web-play, Dan summons Anna a suitor via a sexually explicit IM session he is
forging to a stranger. The stranger meets a perplexed Anna, but he turns out
to be dermatologist Larry (Clive Owen) probably one of the best-looking
persons you could dream to meet via a practical joke. And even though he's a
whoremonger and sex message troller, she marries the guy.
And the complications continue. More time has passed. Dan still wants Anna
(presumably because she spurned him), Anna takes Larry out of masochism we
can only guess (the two have no chemistry) and Alice loves Dan, but isn't
above spreading (and later, in a strip club, literally, spreading) her
youthful wiles towards Larry. Though we're not sure what the characters'
true motivations really are (and truth comes up frequently in this picture),
they discuss them willingly, sometimes lying, sometimes with spiteful
ferociousness. To see Julia Roberts discuss how Dan's cum tastes the same as
Larry's "only sweeter" is something to behold and, in spite of what some
critics say, not unnatural for Roberts. She's been looking unhappy in most
of her films; it's nice to see that frown utilized with such empty
dolefulness. Roberts either gets her character or simply looks the part;
she's understated and cheerless.
The actors all do their best, clearly relishing their dialogue-heavy roles
that move almost mathematically. Law is an overly sensitive narcissicist
(maybe the worst kind of man alive) and Portman a too-world-weary stripper
at such a young age. She's not simply tragic, and dumb, she's lost. And her
body, a peach (especially in her stripping scene, which understandably
should remained clothed, otherwise no viewer would pay attention to what she
was saying), juxtaposed to all the jaundice, is an actual tool, rather than
cheap titillation device.?
But this is a bloodless movie; even though I'm sure we are supposed to feel
something for these characters. We don't. We're merely impressed or unmoved
by their machinations. Especially Clive Owen's Larry who, in the end, mops
the floor with not only the cast, but the characters themselves. Coming off
first as something of a working-class boob, he reveals himself as a clever
predator of shrewd brilliance. The actor is sleazy and commanding, and he
stalks the film with such visceral power, you can't help but side with the
guy. After all, these people are fooling themselves. Truth? Do they really
want it? Love? Do they honestly know what it means? Happiness? Could they
ever get over themselves to achieve it? No. And Larry cynically knows this.
That is why he can skillfully carry the line (and tidy meaning for the film
itself) with intense carnal knowledge: "The heart is a fist wrapped in
blood!"

Read More Kim Morgan at her blog Sunset Gun .
E-MAIL THE AUTHOR |
ARCHIVES
|