« Watching The Watchers: TIFF 07 | Main | Can Lars & The Real Girl Be This Year’s Little Miss Sunshine? »
September 12, 2007
The Should Be Retitled Sidney Lumet Project
It’s too much for people to hang onto the title, Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead. It’s very poetic and all, and the movie opens with the part of the quote that has already been left off, “May you be in heaven half an hour before…,” but still. If 5% of the movie going populace comes up with the title right, it will be a miracle. (Find Me Guilty had a similar problem, actually.) Maybe “The Devil Knows” or more appropriately, “The Devil You Know.”
But I digress before I even start…
Sidney Lumet’s 45th film is a classical addition to his oeuvre. Lumet is no stranger to complex narrative, but here, in his 83rd year, he is playing with time sequencing to tell a story that is more complex than almost any that others proclaimed for the effort have tried, yet narratively clean as a whistle.
Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead is the story of two brothers (Phillip Seymour Hoffman & Ethan Hawke), terribly desperate in completely different ways, though both need money. That is about all the detail I want to give up about this film in terms of story.
The supporting cast starts with Marisa Tomei, who at 42 is pretty close to the embodiment of what men over 40 dream of finding in a woman who is “age appropriate.” Really, she’s never been sexier. And it’s not just the nudity… it is the energy she brings to her scenes. She wants to be loved, in every way, and seems to be willing to be okay with anything else that comes up short, so long as she gets that. It is a high bar for some men, I guess, but who wants anything much lower than that? (Certainly few women I have ever met.)
A sidebar family of Brian F. O’Byrne, Aleksa Palladino, and Michael Shannon are excellent. Rosemary Harris plays a very small role, though she always radiates. And it’s always fun to see Leonard Cimino turn up in a film.
But the primary trio are the brothers and their father, played by the great Albert Finney. (The last time Finney worked with Lumet he got an Oscar nod for Murder on the Orient Express.) Ethan Hawke is at his best here, playing, as he does best, a loser with just enough looks and oddball charm to get by. He is scruffy and unwashed and quirky and scared of his own shadow from the start to the finish of the film. On the other hand, Phil Hoffman has climbed about ¾ up the corporate ladder, his suits pressed, his tie matching, his hair combed. What’s made him desperate? He’s not anxious to tell anyone. He just wants to take action and move forward. Finney is old and casual with the feeling of a retired gentleman. He hasn’t been a great father… and still isn’t. But his beliefs are rock solid.
As in The Savages, Hoffman is beyond reproach here, though the skill with which he works through the comedy of the other film is pretty spectacular. Here, the fireworks come two or three times, and in a way we have never really seen him deliver before.
This is not a perfect film. Lumet’s career is so astonishing that it is pretty tough to place this in a specific section of the pantheon. I would say that it’s his best film since Q&A, which was a passion project he both wrote and directed 17 years ago.
The thing that is so compelling about this film is that it makes the audience work for it. The time narrative jumping back and forth and between different character’s perspectives (there is no Rashomon comparson – though Lumet did a version of that for TV in 1960 - as everyone sees the events in the same objective reality) keeps you trying to figure out what has happened as well as what is coming next. Even little pieces, like an oddly timed phone call that doesn’t identify the caller, are presented and re-presented, filling in the gaps and constantly feeding the satisfaction audiences love while testing them, which they also love. Some moments you are ahead of… some you don’t see coming… some resonate differently emotionally depending on the perspective.
Interestingly, the one thing that is not clarified is the fate of a couple of the characters, which I will admit, left me wanting. (As I arrived back at my computer, I suddenly wondered whether there was a tag at the end of the credits that explained. I both hope there was (it would tie the bow) and that there was not (because I missed it).
In any case, the film is quite clever… the kind of movie that adults really enjoy and kids don’t much bother with. And the tone is pitch black, which is another challenge in terms of butts in seats. But definitely another worthy addition to Lumet’s filmography.
Posted by poland at September 12, 2007 11:19 PM
Comments
Seeing this on Tuesday, I can't wait. Interesting that both Lumet and Woody are doing different takes on a similar theme; brothers turning to a life of crime. This Lumet film, though, is one that if I had remembered it was coming out this year would have been on my "ten films to look forward to" list.
Posted by: Noah ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 12, 2007 11:43 PM
If the average plebeian even sees this movie, they'll probably just ask for "That Ethan Hawke Movie" or "That Devil Movie," like they've done at the theatres I've ever worked at for the past twenty-one years, whenever they've been a title that is more than one or two words long.
Last year, one of the times I was doing a cash drop in the box office, some guy came up and asked for "That Bruce Willis movie," and it took my cashier a good two minutes to figure out if he wanted 16 Blocks or Lucky Number Slevin, because the customer didn't know anything about the film other than that Bruce Willis was in it.
Posted by: Edward Havens at September 13, 2007 01:15 PM
I don't know if people will always get the title correct when saying it, but I guarantee people will remember titles like "Before the Devil Knows Your Dead" or "The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford" better than titles like "Fracture" or "Frailty" or "Premonition" or any other one-word disposable title. They might be easier to remember because they're shorter, but everytime someone tries to tell me about those movies, it's always "that one with Anthony Hopkins" or something along those lines. At least with the longer titles, they might say something like "the Jesse James movie" or "the Devil one." I don't know why, but I think it's better that they get a part of the title than to have a title that is so arbitrary as to be unnecessary.
Posted by: Noah at September 13, 2007 01:42 PM
"Sidney Lumet’s 45th film is a classical addition to his oeuvre. Lumet is no stranger to complex narrative, but here, in his 83rd year, he is playing with time sequencing to tell a story that is more complex than almost any that others proclaimed for the effort have tried, yet narratively clean as a whistle."
I would posit that it isn't the story that is complex at all, but the characters within.
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley at September 14, 2007 12:39 AM
I cannot believe that you are criticising the title of this film for being too complicated. Seriously, it is six words long. I am astonished that you should even think of it as something to criticise. You yourself describe it as poetic - are you seriously suggesting that poetry should be discarded in favour of simplicity?
You write that, "The thing that is so compelling about this film is that it makes the audience work for it." Well, if they can work for the film, I'm sure they'll be able to remember the title.
In any case, you seem to have a remarkably low opinion of the average moviegoer. I don't know that many people who just go to see "that Bruce Willis movie". Certainly, I don't think that these people make up 95% of the moviegoing public, as you suggest. And even if it did, then this movie would present further problems, wouldn't it? Or perhaps you think that Philip Seymour Hoffman should have fewer names as well.
Posted by: just_this_guy at January 22, 2008 02:01 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)