Closer

[modage]

I think I just vomited a little bit in my mouth.

hahah thats how I FEEL in the IHH thread!  

[Gold Trumpet]

This film is the skeleton of another film. Not only do the emotions feel hollow, but the focus of the film only allows for that: every relationship is viewed only at their beginning and ends. Its focuses just on the surface revelations and the initial flirtations. Never does the film allow itself to view any couple or person in a way that really begins to explain or detail who they could be. I even felt Portman's revelation at the end was more a gimmick than such. But, the film I actually kept thinking about was A Clockwork Orange. The point of the film felt like it was a role reverse for Jude Law's character to show dimension to the so called "bad guys". 'spoiler' At the beginning, he was breaking hearts and with little remorse. His character was nothing more and so the audience was asked to take him for it. But, then things turned around and he was put in the middle of a very different relationship and then he was hurt and portrayed simply as the victim, ala Clockwork Orange's point about the dehuminization of criminals in our society. Did i really buy into what the film was trying to do and be moved? No. Writing can be good and sometimes its too clever to be really moving. Way too clever here for the job it wanted to do. Nichols films with every artistic touch expected of him but the film misses the point and so much more.

[SoNowThen]

*Spoilers an' shit*

I just saw this (cos it just came to London). I didn't read what has been said 'til now, as I want this to be just straight up first impression, so apologies if I reiterate anything that's already been beaten to death.

Very good flick. Somewhat similar, even, to something I'm working on right now. When it started off I thought I might hate it because of the too-witty banter and style of acting, but it just came together nicely and really kept picking up momentum. Some capsule reviews had mentioned that Nichols took it to an almost surreal level by isolating the four main characters, and I kept thinking along the lines of Carnal Knowledge (which, I think I've said before, I consider a full-out masterpiece and one of my top 30 of all time). But that wasn't the case. Not that I would've minded seeing ONLY the four characters (in fact, it's an exciting idea), but I suppose that would have really called attention to itself, and he kept it minimal but still believable, and it worked very well. In fact, he was able to use lots of 'extras' at key moments to punch something through, an emotion, let's say -- like in the opera house when all those people flooded past Julia and Jude, or for the very last shot. Oh, and as to Julia and Jude, not to take anything away from them because I thought they were great... well, another review I skimmed had mentioned something about Clive and Natalie stealing the movie, and I just put this down as another 'hate the star actors' thing some reviewers have. But hell, this critic was right. Natalie Portman is, of course, my current favorite actress, and proves yet again that she is BOTH the hottest AND most interesting of anywhere near her age group / generation. And finally she got to play a character who you can only completely love some of the time, as opposed to most of her other characters who you love all of the time. Again, not that it's a depth issue, but it's just nice to see her doing great at something different. Variety is a much more respectful word than branching out. Basically shitty actors 'branch out' to try something different, good actors sometimes pick a 'variety' of parts, is all I'm trying to say. But Clive, damn was he fucking hardcore. The end of his big fight scene with Julia, and then the best scene in the movie, the strip club bit -- just totally unafraid. Maybe deep deep down in Julia and Jude's mind they know they still have a star image to uphold outside of this movie, but Clive just kept getting deeper and deeper; an asshole, a pervert, a savage... and yet so fucking aware of it. That line "because I'm a fucking caveman!" was the best delivered of the year (2004, that is, as we'll count it by American release).

But I must be fair, and still say it was a less than perfect movie, for two reasons (and a bit):

1. Shit shit shit Damien Rice song to open and close the film. Why? There's at least five other singer/guitar player guys who fit the mood mode in the same ballpark as this guy, and they're ALL better. Damien Rice is like Ryan Adams or Ray LaMontagne for 15 year old girls. A song by a sad romantic does not fit a movie about bitterness and shallowness and selfishness and need. Take Nick Drake for instance (cos that's what Mikey boy was really looking for: a modern Drake) -- he is a sad romantic for sure, but one who's songs come across as extremely bitter and needy... and that's why we love him. Cos the 'him' in his songs is not a phony.

2. The style. Post Carnal Knowledge Mike Nichols is a fucking boring visual director. It's a sad sad crying shame. You can be minimal and not take away from performances, and STILL find a way to not shoot a made-for-tv movie. Plus, there was a point where the fact that this movie was really a play shines through, because too many cross-cut Medium Close Ups just weren't working. Any shot that held both people in a wider frame (with a few notable exceptions) played much better. But this is coming from a guy who has become, of late, more and more disgruntled with standard coverage, so take that with a grain of salt...

But on the whole I really can overlook this stuff (like I can overlook the completely retarded CBC-esque Native Indian scene in the otherwise perfect Notre Musique). When you take chances, some fail. Fair enough. In closing, I'd like to mention some guilty pleasures of Closer. To begin, a movie shot in and around many Central London locations, of which I have walked in the last year. And yet still aware of its half-American cast, enough to emphasize "bird' and "bloke" and "loo", and have them not sound quite right coming from Nat. That hits home in a cute, funny way. Also, hearing How Soon Is Now in that stripclub. Fucking ace. In fact, besides the Rice fiasco, it was a great soundtrack. And finally, if I may revert to my most lad-ish self, seeing Natalie Portman's fine fine super fine ass in a G-string was a treat unto itself. Not too distracting to take me out of the movie, but enough for my eyes to just nearly pop out of my head.

The movie could take you into the realm of near generalization, where all women use their bodies/surface sexuality to gain power and then say 'I'm not a slut', and all men display emotionless obsession with sex and sex alone and then want to be taken seriously as higher thinkers, and in the face of this you would think that it was slipping into unfairness or cliche or the easy way out until you realized that this really seems to be the foundation of most human relationships (like it or not). We have the capacity to be giving and loving in near tandem with our destructiveness and pettiness. At least that's what me and Jean-Paul Sartre think...

[SoNowThen]

Sorry for the double post. Now that I've read through the history here, I'd just like to add some quick things. Not as an attack, but just from a different point of view on this:

Closer is an empty shell of a movie.  Nothing is explained, everything is taken at face value, and emotions and motives can be turned on and off with the ease and speed of the flick of a switch.

These people can't make up their minds, and Jane at the end there, just decides she doesn't love Law's character because he wants to hear the truth from her.  Again.  Okay.

To what you said in the first bit (nothing explained, face value, off and on with a flick of a switch) -- that IS the very makeup of intimate (or would-be) relationships. You love someone sooo much, you care about them sooo much, then the minute you see them you hurt them. And then you think 'oh, I must have really wanted to hurt them, I guess I don't like them'. Then you look at them feeling bad and you wanna puke and all of a sudden become so totally selfless and caring for them. But then maybe that's because you're a coward and don't wanna be seen as the bad guy. And on and on and you'll never really know. If it looks facile or staged on the surface, I would suggest it's because of a little tool of drama called Text and Subtext.

As to Jane deciding she doesn't love him at the end, it would seem to me that it's because through his actions she is able to see that he is more interested in whether or not he 'beat' Clive Owen and got to fuck both women, than the fact that he is back with the person he is supposed to be with.

That was the little knife twist of this story. That insistence on "truth" -- damn, I can be like that. People running around with little Martyr For Truth complexes can be equally or moreso shallow than those who can't be bothered to think about it at all.

Oh, and as others have mentioned, that little mystery over Natalie's name was some nice gravy.

[Thrindle]

Oh, and as others have mentioned, that little mystery over Natalie's name was some nice gravy.

Not to put too much thought into a crap movie, but it was more than just gravy.  It depicts how much we change for those that we love, or want to receive love from.  In the end, we go back to a person that is rather unlike the version of self we presented to our lover, because it is closer to who we actually are.

This movie just beat you over the head with that idea.

[SoNowThen]

I didn't see much in that movie that had to do with love...

though your point is an interesting one. Surely we change everyday, from person to person, regardless if we want love, hate, fear, or respect from them. Also, as with any close friendship/relationship, you can only present so much of your "true" self at a time... people need to get climatized. The really good relationships are the ones where you get to the point of being as close I guess as to how you wanna be around them, warts and all. But even then, I dunno... your being around someone is gonna change you, change your tunes, your harmonies.

It seemed like the movie beat you over the head with the whole "the truth is..." idea, not just centered on 'self' or 'love', but on information, revelation, memories, and moment to moment thinking -- and that insight being honest rarely excuses it from being painful -- and damn we need to get beaten over the head with that one, at least I do sometimes.

[cowboykurtis]

Closer is an empty shell of a movie.  Nothing is explained, everything is taken at face value, and emotions and motives can be turned on and off with the ease and speed of the flick of a switch.

There is nothing real or human about the emotions of anyone in this film.  Most people don't behave like this, and I'd hate to meet ones who do.  It's almost as bad as a LaBute movie (except the characters are all slime).  But in this case, it's just the men, which is where the comparison to LaBute comes in.  Solondz might be another accurate comparison, though, sans sarcasm and irony.  In the end, everyone has fucked everyone, and everyone is left empty as a result.

There were a few shining moments in the film that didn't make me hate it totally.  While most of the dialogue was really quite unrealistic and unfocused, there were a few memorable, well-played/written/directed exchanges.  Unfortunately, these exchanges moved a bit too fast for me to record in my mind verbatim what the lines and exchanges were that I truly loved.  And the film did leave the indelible impression in our minds of Julia Roberts getting it in the face from Jude Law.  But still, this whole thing was just very contrived, and tried too hard, from the opening sequence.  "Hello, stranger?"  After you've been hit by a car?  Okay.  These people can't make up their minds, and Jane at the end there, just decides she doesn't love Law's character because he wants to hear the truth from her.  Again.  Okay.

I guess the whole tone the movie tried to project on to me bounced off and made me regurgitate any profundities I may have otherwise absorbed.  Come to think of it, I have yet to see a great relationship movie, a great adult drama, that is purely about relationships, leaving me to believe that if a movie is only about one thing, and it tackles the subject in an overt manner, it will fail, because there is nothing else there to anchor the story.

I'm curious about the "final shot" that everyone is saying is so brilliant?  The passport?  The stone in the wall with Alice's name on it?  Jane walking down the street in that white tank top in slow motion, her breasts bouncing up and down and guys turning around to stare at her?  I didn't see the brilliance in any of those things.

EDIT: Just wanted to add that I remembered one of the things that turned me off to this movie so much.  It was the questions.  "Was it good?  Did you come?  Better than with me?  Blah, blah, blah, orgasm-cakes."  These are the questions that immature, insecure high school students just experimenting and learning about sex might ask.  'Cause we're all that inadequate, inexperienced, and ill-advised when it comes to the subject, right?  And that's what makes this so "real."  (My tongue is firmly in cheek, my eyes almost falling out of their sockets from rolling around so much.)  Maybe I'm just a little more mature than these people and that's why I didn't like this flick.  Because these people are stupid.  They care so much about how their "other"s have fucked another person, and they care so much about the quality of these fucks, when if they really loved their "other," it wouldn't be an issue.  And that's what killed Dan's and Alice/Jane's relationship.

out of curiosity, how old are you?

[ono]

24.  How about you?  And what does that have to do with anything (out of curiosity -- haha)?

[Jeremy Blackman]

I loved this movie. I expected to at least half like it, but I loved it.

Closer is an empty shell of a movie.  Nothing is explained

Is it empty because you don't understand it? If things were shamelessly spelled out, would you consider it less empty? And if you truly do believe it's an empty shell of a movie, why would you have this desire for things to be explained?

EXTREME SPOILERS

emotions and motives can be turned on and off with the ease and speed of the flick of a switch.

You're simplifying it because you don't want to believe there's anything to understand. Of course they're not machines. The movie is about lying (or truth)... lying to others and lying to one's self. These emotional flips you speak of are simply epiphanies, when the characters realize they've been lying to themselves. It's just a little emotionally complex, but nothing that we should be struggling with.

But in this case, it's just the men, which is where the comparison to LaBute comes in.

Of course it's not just the men. Remember the scene in the hotel room when Alice suddenly realizes she doesn't love Dan? I assume those are the moments you're talking about.

(except the characters are all slime)

Not really. Clive Owen's character is slime-ish, sure, but he's honest (the only character who's honest, I think). Dan isn't really slime, he's just stupid. And how is Alice slime? She's like the herione! (If anyone is blameless, it's Alice.) Even Julia Roberts' character came out likeable and relatively unslimy (or at least sympathetic).

But in this case, it's just the men, which is where the comparison to LaBute comes in.

Of course it's not just the men. Remember when Alice suddenly realizes she doesn't love Dan? I assume these are the kinds of scenes you're talking about.

In the end, everyone has fucked everyone, and everyone is left empty as a result.

Actually I think Dan is the only truly empty one in the end (especially with the scene where he realizes "Alice" was a fake name). Alice stops being dependent. Clive Owen's character gets everything he wants. Julia Roberts is on a guilt trip, sure, but at least she's not going back and forth (though we probably know the least about her ending).

While most of the dialogue was really quite unrealistic and unfocused, there were a few memorable, well-played/written/directed exchanges.

Yeah, how about Clive Owen's dialogue? Everything he said blew me away.

And the film did leave the indelible impression in our minds of Julia Roberts getting it in the face from Jude Law.

That was Natalie Portman. (But for the record, I think the "slap" should have been louder.)

But still, this whole thing was just very contrived, and tried too hard, from the opening sequence. "Hello, stranger?" After you've been hit by a car? Okay.

What is it with you and realism? This is a movie.

EDIT: Just wanted to add that I remembered one of the things that turned me off to this movie so much.  It was the questions.  "Was it good?  Did you come?  Better than with me?  Blah, blah, blah, orgasm-cakes."  These are the questions that immature, insecure high school students just experimenting and learning about sex might ask.

We're talking about Clive Owen's character here. He was a pervert. It's that simple.

[ono]

Is it empty because you don't understand it? If things were shamelessly spelled out, would you consider it less empty? And if you truly do believe it's an empty shell of a movie, why would you have this desire for things to be explained?

No, it's empty because the only thing it really says about relationships is these people are shallow and they have no business being in them and inflicting their emotional baggage bullshit on others.  But they do.  Like 90% of the maladjusted population.  So perhaps the writer may have had a point there.

You're simplifying it because you don't want to believe there's anything to understand.

No I'm not.  There's nothing enlightening or intelligent or profound in this film.  No insights.  Just a bunch of emotionally immature fools whinging about who fucked who and why.

Not really. Clive Owen's character is slime-ish, sure, but he's honest (the only character who's honest, I think). Dan isn't really slime, he's just stupid. And how is Alice slime? She's like the herione! (If anyone is blameless, it's Alice.) Even Julia Roberts' character came out likeable and relatively unslimy (or at least sympathetic).

Alice didn't do anything to reject Law's character.

And the film did leave the indelible impression in our minds of Julia Roberts getting it in the face from Jude Law.

That was Natalie Portman. (But for the record, I think the "slap" should have been louder.)

No, it was Julia Roberts -- I was referring to something much more obscene than a "slap."

But still, this whole thing was just very contrived, and tried too hard, from the opening sequence. "Hello, stranger?" After you've been hit by a car? Okay.

What is it with you and realism? This is a movie.

A movie that is supposed to portray real relationships should be real.  This movie, like the characters in it, was total bullshit.

I take a great interest in surrealism.  I think its use can be powerful in the right hands.  But the movie has to be overtly surrealistic or at least choose its moments to utilize these techniques effectively.  Closer doesn't even try to be surrealistic.  So that moment was unbelievable and stuck out like a sore thumb.

[Jeremy Blackman]

MORE SPOILERS

There's nothing enlightening or intelligent or profound in this film.  No insights.  Just a bunch of emotionally immature fools whinging about who fucked who and why.

First you simplify, now you trivialize. You just didn't get into the story.

Alice didn't do anything to reject Law's character.

Of course she did, eventually. But she was dependent for most of the movie, even when she knew better. Doesn't that make her sympathetic? Come on Ono, you heartless old man!

No, it was Julia Roberts -- I was referring to something much more obscene than a "slap."

Oh... oh. Right.

A movie that is supposed to portray real relationships should be real.  This movie, like the characters in it, was total bullshit . . . I take a great interest in surrealism.  I think its use can be powerful in the right hands.  But the movie has to be overtly surrealistic or at least choose its moments to utilize these techniques effectively.

I didn't know you were that much of a black and white realist. It has to be entirely surrealistic/fantastical or entirely realistic? What about incongruence? What about impurity? What about the grey area? I love the grey area. I'd live in the grey area.

[ono]

First you simplify, now you trivialize. You just didn't get into the story.

You're right.  I do think this story is a bit trivial.  A suspension of disbelief on some level is required to enjoy a story.  I tried, I really did.  I think, though, the first time I was really turned off was during the inexplicable chat room scene.  Sometimes people just do things, and that's fine.  But some things demand more of an explanation than that.  This took me out: why would Law's character go in a chat room to seduce horny men?  I guess we're meant to take it at face value, but it struck me as a plot device that was clunky and didn't work.

Alice didn't do anything to reject Law's character.

Of course she did, eventually. But she was dependent for most of the movie, even when she knew better. Doesn't that make her sympathetic? Come on Ono, you heartless old man!

Haha.

A movie that is supposed to portray real relationships should be real.  This movie, like the characters in it, was total bullshit . . . I take a great interest in surrealism.  I think its use can be powerful in the right hands.  But the movie has to be overtly surrealistic or at least choose its moments to utilize these techniques effectively.

I didn't know you were that much of a black and white realist. It has to be entirely surrealistic/fantastical or entirely realistic? What about incongruence? What about impurity? What about the grey area? I love the grey area. I'd live in the grey area.

I'm not that much of a black-and-white realist.  Take Buffalo '66.  One of the best, most pure moments ever in a film, the tap dancing scene.  A moment of surreal beauty in the midst of chaos.  But it needs context.  I guess if you're looking for it, you could find reason to give "hello, stranger" a pass in the same light.  It's just a minor nitpick, and the thing that makes it stick out is he didn't continue with that surreal tone.  I think it would've added a more cinematic quality to the film if he did (as it did play like a play most of the time).

[Gold Trumpet]

Oh, JB, you search out a disagreeing review and call out a war and you overlook me? C'mon, Ono and I almost had mirror reviews. Why not throw down the gauntlet with me? I almost feel rejected I wasn't involved in this one....

[Jeremy Blackman]

Oh, JB, you search out a disagreeing review and call out a war and you overlook me? C'mon, Ono and I almost had mirror reviews. Why not throw down the gauntlet with me? I almost feel rejected I wasn't involved in this one....

Okay, I'll give it a shot.

This film is the skeleton of another film.

And which film is that?

every relationship is viewed only at their beginning and ends. Its focuses just on the surface revelations and the initial flirtations.

So you want the big uneventful middle? What makes you think something crucial happened when the camera wasn't looking? I really didn't feel like I was missing anthing.

I still don't understand why you and Ono think this is a vacuous movie. Were you not paying attention? What do you mean by "surface revelations"? There were big, deep, emotional revelations that came from somewhere far below the surface. In fact, doesn't the film contain a series of deep emotional revelations (with the "I've been lying to myself" epiphanies), and isn't it concerned with tearing away the surface?

At the beginning, he was breaking hearts and with little remorse. His character was nothing more and so the audience was asked to take him for it. But, then things turned around and he was put in the middle of a very different relationship

So you're opposed to character development?

[ono]

I still don't understand why you and Ono think this is a vacuous movie. Were you not paying attention?

Jeremy, it's all well and good that you're wanting to debate.  I like that.  But please stop passive-aggressively insulting people who disagree with you.  It is insulting to say that just because we don't like something means we don't understand it or somehow weren't paying attention.

We've explained why we felt the film was vacuous.  For me it has to do with my thoughts on relationships.  cowboy seems to think that because I didn't like the film means I haven't been in love.  Untrue.  You've seen profundities in the analyses of relationships here that I don't see.  Because in my experience with relationships, I see things differently.  Things in this film are all seedy, and the characters are pretty despicable, without redeeming qualities (unlike Sideways -- and no, I don't simply hate films with unlikable characters, let's get that out of the way).