Rating: 15/20
Plot: A mass murderer, a mechanic, a priest? Nobody seems to know who Josh really is after he returns to the town where he killed a girl and his father. He gets a job as a mechanic and strikes up a friendship with the owner's daughter.
My brother gave this to me to watch about six years ago in his continued efforts to see the light on this guy's films. And you know, I might be starting to get it. There's a lack of style to Hartley's work that nearly becomes a style. Like David Lynch, Hartley's dialogue feels stilted, and the characters have the kinds of conversations that they can only have in movies that aren't written very well. Their interactions are askew, their relationships really difficult to understand. And isn't it odd that there only seems to be about seven people in this little world that Hal Hartley has created? It's almost like the characters feel forced to interact with each other because there's nobody else around. I guess Hartley doesn't believe in using extras. The acting doesn't help make this any more natural. From top to bottom of the cast, it's what most people would call bad, led by Chris Cooke who plays the girl's dad Vic who delivers an odd, nearly Torgo Award worthy performance. And his birthday party sure looked like a riproaringly good time. The guy who plays Audrey's ex-boyfriend--Gary Sauer as Emmet--also gives the type of performance that shows he's really got no business being in a movie. He spends most of the movie awkwardly shoving people, and it gets funnier every single time. He's also probably too old to be cast in that role anyway, and I love how he's wearing, in one of a few things that seem like continuity errors but might not be, the same exact outfit on a day that has to be several days later. I also liked the asshole photographer who has a great simple line: "Good God, my fucking vase!" The late Adrienne Shelly's performance is inconsistent, but there's something really attractive about the whole thing. There's also an off-rhythm to this movie that reminds me a little of Jarmusch, something that gives it a quality that is simultaneously gritty and dreamy. I wonder how much of this first movie Hartley would change if he had to do it all over again. Would he leave the shot of one of his seven characters taking a manly bite out of a piece of toast? Would he have the characters change their clothing more often? Would he get rid of that amateurish allusion to The Misanthrope? Would he cut the pair of scenes where the mechanic who isn't Vic or Josh randomly plays the guitar? Woudl he still have those dopey title cards--Meanwhile, After a While, But? What about the scene where two characters sit in a restaurant and repeat the same lines of dialogue four times for no reason unless "being artsy-fartsy" is a reason? Despite numerous problems, this is a sneakily funny movie and definitely the type of movie where the sum is greater than its parts. Interestingly, I actually kind of wanted to watch this again just to see if any of this connected a little better than it seemed.
2 comments:
thank you! it is the girls father he kills not his own.
i agree hal hartley doesnt seem to like extras. their is a nice sparceness to his movies(people, music, set dressing). the movie he did set in paris only seems to have 40 people in it(for him that is a epic cast of millions) it's paris for god's sake. i like the weird stitled completely unnatural conversations. the repeated conversation is a fav. and i loved the title cards. i'm vetoing any changes there as well.
Oops! I knew that and just typed the wrong thing.
Yeah, I probably like the title cards. I don't know about the repeated conversation though. I didn't get the point. But I almost always prefer unnatural conversations over natural ones in movies.
Post a Comment