In the spectrum of movie rating, where the extremes are "Loved It" and "Hated It", most movies end up somewhere in the middle. It's not often a movie completely endears itself to me or completely alienates me. However, this has a positive result. I tend to revisit the movies that I am most conflicted about more than any I've loved or hated. I suppose I'm looking to be won over: perhaps I didn't submit myself completely the first time. Thus Treading Old Waters, my thoughts on a film after another go 'round.
The second time you watch a movie can be a very different experience from the first time. Since you have seen the movie, you may notice things you didn't before because you are not as focused on what is happening. You have time to appreciate the cinematography, or notice what's in the frame besides the main focus of that shot. Perhaps you didn't fully grasp that plot and a second time through can illuminate and clarify some things for you, really changing your experience of the film. Usually, the biggest difference for me is the pacing. I think of it like this: you're going on a trip, could be local or long distance, you've got your directions or map in hand, you know where you're going; the first time you take that trip feels interminably long, simply because although you know where you're going you have no frame of reference, no landmarks. Every subsequent trip feels much shorter because there is no question of where you're going. The best example I can offer is There Will Be Blood. It's a fairly long film, clocking in at over two and a half hours. In the theater I liked it, but it felt long, I found myself looking at the wall every now and then. It wasn't until I saw it on DVD that I found myself excited about certain parts of the film, waiting for the proselytizing of Daniel Plainview or Paul Sunday. We owe it to films and filmmakers to revisit and re-assess, to reconsider what time may have done to a film or to ourselves. As an amateur, movie-blogging nobody, I know that I only see many movies once because I've got so many others waiting. So here's to the second chance. (I also recommend watching foreign films a second time without the subtitles.)
L.A. Confidential is a movie I thought I would like even before seeing it. I am a sucker for Noir, even at it's hammiest moments. (For non-hammie Noir, see The Third Man.) L.A. Confidential has all the qualities of the typical Noir story: hardboiled detectives, sultry dames, seedy thugs, and trip into the shadowy underworld of L.A. in the 50s. There's police corruption, glamorous Hollywood starlets and conspiracies that unfold to reveal the great cynicism beneath the glitz of Hollywood's Golden Age. Teh overarching story is about the take-over of Hollywood's black market by unknown persons, but before that can be addressed there are many zigs and zags in the spiderweb that is the L.A. There's good acting all around from James Cromwell, Guy Pearce, Russell Crowe, Danny Devito and Kevin Spacey. Kim Basinger brings up the rear with plenty of overacting for everyone.
First Viewing: I liked it. It was a solid film that gains much of its strength from its source material by James Ellroy. But there was good acting and it maintained a steady beat throughout. That steady pace was strong until about the end of the film which altered the movie from an interesting drama and study of the nature of corruption into a typical Hollywood action movie. It really killed the mood and all the great tension that had been built up. Overall it was the kind of movie I didn't think could be made anymore. It succeeds in not being an homage to older Noir films, but rather succeeds on its own. It could easily have become a parody of itself, or ultimately aware of itself as a movie that is obviously out of its time. Instead it is welcomed addition to the Noir canon.
Second Viewing: My overall reaction was the same, I think I liked it more actually. The ending action sequence was not as off-putting as in the first viewing. It didn't feel as drawn out and seemed to organic to a major theme in the film: all things end in violence. The acting showed its seems more this time around, especially in the case of Kim Basinger, who seemed to think that she was starring in an homage to Noir cinema. She was too much, a parody of the femme fatale. I was, however, endeared to Russell Crowe, who I usually don't like much but really nails the brawn-over-brains cop against Pearce's well played brains-over-brawn cop. My biggest gripe after a second viewing is some of the cinematography. During some dramatic scenes the camera zooms in to enhance the dramatic nature of the scene, but succeeds only in making the viewer aware of the camera. One scene in particular, which is a romantic scene between Basinger and Crowe, culminates just before the cut in them falling on the bed together and the camera moving in and showing us the scene through the slats on the bedframe. That camera movement drags me right out of the scene. I know that's a bit specific, especially without a clip, but I couldn't find a clip to really illustrate the point. However, this type of heavy handed camera work doesn't occur often in the movie and doesn't ruin the film overall. In fact, L.A. Confidential is a great piece of cinema that should not be missed. One thing it does lack is a strong female role that does not exist solely in relation to a man. But folks, this is Noir.
No comments:
Post a Comment