Movie review
Mar. 14th, 2004 04:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
veronica_richStrange little movie.
Went to see "Secret Window" late Friday night. Was sufficiently intrigued, given the story does not go the same way as the book, at all. For one, the ending is different; for another, Mort Rainey's motivation isn't the same at all.
In the original story (and I'm glad to see it wasn't changed in the anthology reissue now on shelves; I actually like the original story as conceived by S. King), Mort is killed at the end before he can kill Amy. The insurance adjustor is a man, and he shows up at the cabin just as Mort's about to make his wife buy the farm - having come by because he's figured out who burned the house down - and he shoots Mort.
Also, in the movie, Mort's motivation is to repay a cheating wife for her misdeeds. Ho-hum; this is a dime-a-dozen plotline, frankly. In the original story, however, it turns out Mort really did steal the story in question, from an old college classmate who had been drafted to Vietnam and killed in service. His motivation for inventing Shooter and going mad, therefore, stem from a desire to preserve his writing career and real fear he'll be found out, not to mention his obviously subconscious desire to pay for his sins in some fashion. As far as I'm concerned, this would be a more fascinating plotline, and actually make me more empathetic with the character of Mort Rainey.
As for evaluating the film on its own merits, let me get the drawbacks out of the way. The plotline as vehicle for the motivations and such is pedestrian. It was pedestrian when King wrote it, and Koepp kept it that way, whether out of conscious effort to stay close to the source material or of a desire to see it remain that way, I don't know. I expect if you're going to make a movie based on a story someone else has written, it behooves you to stay close to the material - otherwise, you could just make up your own story and not have to pay royalties. And when I refer to "plotline as vehicle," I mean the whole tortured-writer motif, not the motivation of the lead character. (As I say in the above spoilers section, I actually liked Mort's motivation in the story than in the movie.)
The last two seconds of the movie, right before the credits, are just way too cheesy for me. I don't care how much relish Johnny put into doing it, it took away from it all somewhat for me. (Then again, I seem to have an inexplicable aversion to repetition of the phrase "steaming bowl of corn." Just don't like it, I don't really know why.)
Now, those said ... let's move on to the several things good about this movie. First of all is the camera work and director's choices for storytelling. I love the various camera angles Koepp used - aiming up the stairs from the floor while Mort's climbing them to increase the viewer's shared sense of uncertainty about the boogeyman who might be in the loft; the initial shot of sweeping across the lake and up into the house and through it; and anything having to do with that damned mirror in the living room, especially when Mort is approaching, looking at the back of his head instead of his face, as though outside and not responsible for the actions he's taking. I was also surprised - pleasantly so - by the director's choice to have Mort physically arguing with a representation of himself, rather than just arguing via voiceover or Mort himself speaking both points of view out loud to nobody. I was also enjoying the way Koepp blended Mort's sudden rememberances of his sins by overlaying the washed-out-film flashbacks over his expression of dawning horror.
Second, of course, is The Man himself. This is a two-person movie, frankly - Depp and Turturro - with Johnny having the most screen time and, arguably, the best interpretation of his character. What in any other actor's hands would have come off as common and, yes, pedestrian, a character *coughbenaffleckcough*, was in Johnny's hands a quirky, fun character. I love that he's such a slob that he'd rather wave his hands around than use the energy to dry them off; that he brushes Dorito dust off his hands the same way I do; that he grabs a soda and hunkers down over it on his couch to slurp it. I even love the way he goes to sleep on that damned couch - any other actor, conscious of how he looks, of the screencaps to be taken for publicity stills, would have thrown himself onto his back, crooked one knee up and laced his fingers across his chest to look manfully weary. Not Johnny; he trundles right into that couch the same way we all do when nobody else is around, turning toward the back of it, pulling his knees up a little and sticking his backside out to curl into the cushions (*"Coupling" sofa-cushion-rant flashback ...*). And I love how through the entire movie, he doesn't once make an effort to actually look presentable. He schleps around in his socks and ratty robe, his messy hair, smudged glasses, and bad attitude toward life and the wife.
And is there any writer among us who didn't appreciate the whole action of deleting the crap paragraph, followed by a triumphant, "See? No more bad writing."
I even liked the other actors in this. I was surprised to feel sympathy for Ted, but Timothy Hutton played a cuckolder who is out of his element pretty well - bit arrogant, officious, but always undercut by a nervousness due to the fact he KNOWS he did something wrong to Mort.
I've got to pay attention to the credits better next time. I would almost bet someone ten bucks that the girl in the post office - and at the drugstore, at the end of the movie - is Vanessa Paradis. I can't find a credit on IMDB, but if it's not, it still has to be some kind of inside joke, as she looks so much like the woman!
Overall, I think I'll probably go see it again once or twice. It's not worth several viewings in the theater, at full price, as was POTC, but it's worth further study.
Went to see "Secret Window" late Friday night. Was sufficiently intrigued, given the story does not go the same way as the book, at all. For one, the ending is different; for another, Mort Rainey's motivation isn't the same at all.
In the original story (and I'm glad to see it wasn't changed in the anthology reissue now on shelves; I actually like the original story as conceived by S. King), Mort is killed at the end before he can kill Amy. The insurance adjustor is a man, and he shows up at the cabin just as Mort's about to make his wife buy the farm - having come by because he's figured out who burned the house down - and he shoots Mort.
Also, in the movie, Mort's motivation is to repay a cheating wife for her misdeeds. Ho-hum; this is a dime-a-dozen plotline, frankly. In the original story, however, it turns out Mort really did steal the story in question, from an old college classmate who had been drafted to Vietnam and killed in service. His motivation for inventing Shooter and going mad, therefore, stem from a desire to preserve his writing career and real fear he'll be found out, not to mention his obviously subconscious desire to pay for his sins in some fashion. As far as I'm concerned, this would be a more fascinating plotline, and actually make me more empathetic with the character of Mort Rainey.
As for evaluating the film on its own merits, let me get the drawbacks out of the way. The plotline as vehicle for the motivations and such is pedestrian. It was pedestrian when King wrote it, and Koepp kept it that way, whether out of conscious effort to stay close to the source material or of a desire to see it remain that way, I don't know. I expect if you're going to make a movie based on a story someone else has written, it behooves you to stay close to the material - otherwise, you could just make up your own story and not have to pay royalties. And when I refer to "plotline as vehicle," I mean the whole tortured-writer motif, not the motivation of the lead character. (As I say in the above spoilers section, I actually liked Mort's motivation in the story than in the movie.)
The last two seconds of the movie, right before the credits, are just way too cheesy for me. I don't care how much relish Johnny put into doing it, it took away from it all somewhat for me. (Then again, I seem to have an inexplicable aversion to repetition of the phrase "steaming bowl of corn." Just don't like it, I don't really know why.)
Now, those said ... let's move on to the several things good about this movie. First of all is the camera work and director's choices for storytelling. I love the various camera angles Koepp used - aiming up the stairs from the floor while Mort's climbing them to increase the viewer's shared sense of uncertainty about the boogeyman who might be in the loft; the initial shot of sweeping across the lake and up into the house and through it; and anything having to do with that damned mirror in the living room, especially when Mort is approaching, looking at the back of his head instead of his face, as though outside and not responsible for the actions he's taking. I was also surprised - pleasantly so - by the director's choice to have Mort physically arguing with a representation of himself, rather than just arguing via voiceover or Mort himself speaking both points of view out loud to nobody. I was also enjoying the way Koepp blended Mort's sudden rememberances of his sins by overlaying the washed-out-film flashbacks over his expression of dawning horror.
Second, of course, is The Man himself. This is a two-person movie, frankly - Depp and Turturro - with Johnny having the most screen time and, arguably, the best interpretation of his character. What in any other actor's hands would have come off as common and, yes, pedestrian, a character *coughbenaffleckcough*, was in Johnny's hands a quirky, fun character. I love that he's such a slob that he'd rather wave his hands around than use the energy to dry them off; that he brushes Dorito dust off his hands the same way I do; that he grabs a soda and hunkers down over it on his couch to slurp it. I even love the way he goes to sleep on that damned couch - any other actor, conscious of how he looks, of the screencaps to be taken for publicity stills, would have thrown himself onto his back, crooked one knee up and laced his fingers across his chest to look manfully weary. Not Johnny; he trundles right into that couch the same way we all do when nobody else is around, turning toward the back of it, pulling his knees up a little and sticking his backside out to curl into the cushions (*"Coupling" sofa-cushion-rant flashback ...*). And I love how through the entire movie, he doesn't once make an effort to actually look presentable. He schleps around in his socks and ratty robe, his messy hair, smudged glasses, and bad attitude toward life and the wife.
And is there any writer among us who didn't appreciate the whole action of deleting the crap paragraph, followed by a triumphant, "See? No more bad writing."
I even liked the other actors in this. I was surprised to feel sympathy for Ted, but Timothy Hutton played a cuckolder who is out of his element pretty well - bit arrogant, officious, but always undercut by a nervousness due to the fact he KNOWS he did something wrong to Mort.
I've got to pay attention to the credits better next time. I would almost bet someone ten bucks that the girl in the post office - and at the drugstore, at the end of the movie - is Vanessa Paradis. I can't find a credit on IMDB, but if it's not, it still has to be some kind of inside joke, as she looks so much like the woman!
Overall, I think I'll probably go see it again once or twice. It's not worth several viewings in the theater, at full price, as was POTC, but it's worth further study.
