| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 11/24/2008 : 11:38:10
|
Body of Lies
I haven't read the Ignatius novel on which William Monahan intelligent screenplay is based, but if it asks only half the questions posed by Ridley Scott's latest offering, it should be of interest to anyone trying to unpick the tangled political threads that carpet the Middle East.
Only a very few critics are swimming against the tide of disappointment this film has evoked. I dunno, maybe it's not gung-ho enough for them. I found it thoroughly engaging and elegantly structured, never stinting on action and boy-on-boy violence and never gratuitous. Scott's been "doing it right" as a director for so long I bet he could set up camera shots in his sleep and they'd still be right on the money.
I re-saw his brother Tony's Spy Game recently, which is confident, certainly, but lacks what Ridley nearly always provides: a wider context for whatever personal relationship is the film's focus. Spy Game, whatever its slick international setting, its minor revelations about the way real spies operate within and outwith the CIA, traces the inevitable emotional bond that's built between old-hand Redford and new kid in the field Pitt. That's where the drama rests and we can debate long into a boozy evening whether the overtones are dad-kid paradigms or brushed with a hint of the homoerotic. What isn't forefront is the political, the questioning of what security is for and what hierarchy is placed on the value of human life depending on skin colour or language.
Its very title, Body of Lies lets us know Ridley's offering a different take on the elusive spy world. Surprisingly the central relationship almost mirrors that in Tony's film. Russell Crowe, very intelligent, junk-food hefty DC based handler constantly connected by his satellite cellphone to anywhere and everywhere and places you never knew about, controls Leonardo di Caprio. He's Ferris, an Arab speaking field op, quick-witted, nimble-footed and just about credible as a honky passing for Arab.
Ridley's film soars above Tony's because he extends the who-can-you-trust agenda to a political rather than just a personal plane. He does that by humanizing the Arab world, drawing structural parallels by presenting real Arab characters, not just stocking fillers.
Given the most screen time of the indigenous charcters is the head of Jordan's security, played to perfection by Mark Strong, who happens to be of Italian, Austrian ancestry. I wish they'd found as talented a Middle Eastern actor as Strong for the part, but acting isn't about reproducing ones self on screen. And Strong really is terrific - dignified, subtle, and terrifying. The only other time I've believed a man calling another man "my dear" without giggling was Ben Kingsley's portrayal of Fagin - in which Strong played Toby Crackit. I'd be surprised if he doesn't get nominated for best supporting actor.
The other significant characters are Ferris's on-the-ground sidekick, an Arab turned CIA operative, or asset as they're apparently called, and a lovely Jordanian nurse whom Ferris falls for. For Crowe, who's handled ops all over the world for many years, this is just another in a long list - it's like playing chess by eMail. You know the impact your moves will have, but you can't actually see them. For Ferris, this a slice of his life - bruises are counterpointed by sharing jokes in the desert, moment by moment he's being changed. The two men may have begun with similar motives, but Crowe's at home and Ferris is increasingly unsure what home even means.
No, this isn't Ridley's best, but ignore those nay-sayers. This is definitely worth a view and that ain't no lie.
|
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 11/24/2008 : 14:12:56
|
Ridley isn't dipped in gold for me. For instance, I still can't stop cringing ever time I think about Gladiator, but he made up for that fiasco with his Matchstick Men.
My big question is: does DiCaprio scowl throughout this movie, yet again? The last time I didn't see that furrowed brow in each and every scene was when he did The Aviator, and even then he still stuck it in through half of his scenes. I'm getting pretty tired of it, to tell you the truth. Didn't his mommy ever tell him his face might freeze that way? (Ooops, perhaps it already is too late.)
The little question is: how is Alon Abutbul as Al-Saleem in this? He's really a marvelous actor and I really hope he shines in this one, as it is his biggest Hollywood part so far. Many years ago I saw him on stage in a comedy (and he was wonderful), but he is mostly known for his serious parts.
Just curious.
(PS: Now, of course, I understand why DiCaprio was here not too long ago.) |
Edited by - ChocolateLady on 11/24/2008 14:15:28 |
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/24/2008 : 14:40:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Ridley isn't dipped in gold for me. For instance, I still can't stop cringing ever time I think about Gladiator, but he made up for that fiasco with his Matchstick Men.
My big question is: does DiCaprio scowl throughout this movie, yet again? The last time I didn't see that furrowed brow in each and every scene was when he did The Aviator, and even then he still stuck it in through half of his scenes. I'm getting pretty tired of it, to tell you the truth. Didn't his mommy ever tell him his face might freeze that way? (Ooops, perhaps it already is too late.)
The little question is: how is Alon Abutbul as Al-Saleem in this? He's really a marvelous actor and I really hope he shines in this one, as it is his biggest Hollywood part so far. Many years ago I saw him on stage in a comedy (and he was wonderful), but he is mostly known for his serious parts.
Just curious.
(PS: Now, of course, I understand why DiCaprio was here not too long ago.)
Can't agree about Ridley -- I didn't particularly like Gladiator, either, but shot-for-shot the direction was way above standard. Tony's a good craftsman, Ridley had transcended that even by his 2nd feature The Duellists.
Alon Abutbul has hardly anything to do really, but he does it very well. As to di Caprio's facial expressions ... well, we'll have to agree to disagree. At least it's never bothered me. What does bother me is the choices he [or his agent] has made in fighting an almost insurmountable Hollywood problem.
He started acting when he was 16; he was 19 in Gilbert Grape, convincingly playing younger - a combo of his natural ability and his baby face. By the time The Aviator came around he still hadn't shaken off the round un-lived in look that's his genetic heritage. So, he was the wrong image for a young Hughes in the same way Chris O'Donnell couldn't facially convince as a young Hemingway. Their faces are devoid of menace and yet they sometimes choose characters partly driven by menace. di Caprio was so successful as Frank Abagnale Jr in Catch Me If You Can, because, although he couldn't convey the slightly brooding good looks of the real guy, he oozed the kind of charm you could beleive would allow him to land those improbable jobs.
This is saying nothing about their acting; both are fine, and di Caprio can be inspired. I think he knows very well about this image anomaly, and tries to use the "darker" side of his face when appropriate. The first time I thought the transition worked was in Blood Diamond, and I think it mostly works here. He's what? 34 now? I can't recall thinking as I watched Body of Lies that he was a kid dressed up as a man with a sticky-on beard. Mind you, if it had been established his character was meant to be 26, I'd have bought that, too!
BTW - I did mean to mention that the relationship between Ferris and the nurse also represents the way the US has made efforts to woo various Middle Eastern factions and some of the problems encountered. It all fits into the overall picture of truth, lies and trust.
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 11/25/2008 : 06:51:48
|
See, my point is, you don't have to have brooding good looks to act manical. And you don't have to scowl to compensate for a baby-face when you're trying to do this. For instance, John Hannah has a very sweet face, and I was terribly impressed with his sweet-faced bad boy when he did Truth or Dare, which he repeated in Amnesia. The characters he played in these movies were really evil and his looks didn't impair his ability to do this at all. I didn't see his Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, but I saw one comment on IMDb that said something to the effect that he proved you don't have to have an ugly face to represent evil. James Nesbitt succeeded in looking evil in his version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde despite his very comical looking features. And probably the best example of overcoming a pretty face without using facial contortions to show a darker character would be Robert Redford in The Great Gatsby and Indecent Proposal. And by the way, after watching Johnny Depp in some of the scenes in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I can see if he was ever given a really nasty character to play, he'd pull it off perfectly as well - there were some looks he gave the camera in that movie that were downright scary.
The point is, Leo's round, childish face doesn't have to be an impediment to playing a harder character. The problem is, he keeps trying to get his eyes to show it and ends up furrowing his brow instead of allowing the feelings to come through on his face naturally. He really doesn't have to work so hard because if you've ever seen his face when he's on the red carpet and doesn't want to talk to someone, he has a way of looking straight through someone that can send shivers down your spine. Instead of capturing this, he pulls his eyebrows together so they almost meet, and pulls his frown down to his knees - it's practically laughable. Someone should tell him that a small smile can sometimes be extremely menacing.
quote:
Alon Abutbul has hardly anything to do really, but he does it very well.
Well, that was a short answer to a small question. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Body of Lies
