I know I am bit behind on this one, but I'm going to subject you to my thoughts on this topic anyway.


As I wrote in my previous post, I watched Closer this weekend as per Rabid's demands. I came out of the film disappointed, but unable to pinpoint why exactly as there were some lovely lines, but they didn't quite fly and only in a few moments did the scenes really seem to work.


The script is clearly an adaptation of a play. Take that opening "scene" between Alice (Natalie Portman) and Daniel (Jude Law). To make it more exciting for viewers, the conversation is set in a number of locations :an ER, a park, a bus. Somehow by having a changing background, however, the conversation becomes dull and seems static. Furthermore different mediums have different advantages. In adapting a play or a novel to screen effectively, one has to play to its unique talents. In the film adaptation of The Sweet Hereafter a number of changes had to be made, including a massive transition in the narrative format. In the book, the narrative of the event is seperated into four discreet monologues. Although the original conception of the film tried to imitate that format, Egoyan, the director, decided it wasn't effective and told the story in non-chronological overlapping narratives. Despite such a massive change, the film captures the feeling of the book. Here keeping too close to the form of the play is actually a disservice to the story. Simply changing the setting was not enough. I suspect that here the inclusion of scenes that were edited from the original because of the limitations of the stage would have been a distinct advantage.


But what really killed this film was the pace. Nichols was apparently going for a kind of Pinter-esque approach to the action with long "meaningful" silences. Some of these moments worked, but Closer is supposed to be about four people who tear themselves and others apart in the name of passion. The lack of nudity, although striking, is fine as nudity is not necessarily indicative of passion, but frenzy is. The manic pace of a film like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind depict the out of control acceleration that the characters in Closer are supposed to be experiencing. To have a few reflective moments is fine, but the long silences compounded by the nearly expressionless faces of Julia Roberts and Jude Law weighs down the pace to a crawl deadening whatever action, below the waist or otherwise, which might carry this film. And they certainly don't create the impression that the action centers around four characters in the grip of overwhelming impulses, but rather their decisions to cheat on each other are the studied results of hours upon hours of silent refection. In the few moments where the lines are quickly picked up and the silences are filled with action, like the confrontation between Alice and Daniel, the movie works because it does convey the irrational and impulsive nature of these characters. I only wish the film had been allowed to have more of these moments and less "Hey hey look we're being profound. See how much time we are taking looking thoughtful."


Speaking of stage to screen adaptations I recently found out the film version of Rent is going to be directed by Christopher Columbus. Who, may I ask, came up with the brilliant idea that a man who has made his career with sentimental family comedies (Mrs Doubtfire, Home Alone, Nine Months) should direct a film version of a musical about bohemian new yorkers? Does he seem like the right guy to direct a musical deals with such lighthearted issues as sexual identity, suicide, and AIDS? Well, I guess those Harry Potter films were a little dark.