Sunday, January 29, 2012

INCREDIBLY CLOSE TO WHAT? As part of my feeling an obligation to see at least the majority of films that are Best Picture nominees (now at 6 of 9 for the year--haven't seen The Artist, The Tree of Life, or War Horse, and will probably only get to 7 or 8 total), I saw Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close in a fairly full theatre on the Upper East Side of Manhattan last night. I certainly wouldn't have ranked it #1 on my ballot, but nor did I react with the shock and disgust that some critics have leveled at the film. A couple of relatively spoiler-free thoughts:
  • Despite the fact that Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock are top billed, they have maybe 10-15 minutes of screen time each--indeed, I think Max von Sydow and Viola Davis both have more screen time than does Hanks. (Reports are that Bullock had a significant subplot excised which involved James Gandolfini, who was highly billed on early posters, and whose part is entirely left on the cutting room floor.) That means that the movie rises and falls on Thomas Horn, whose sole credit before this was appearing on Kids Week on Jeopardy! The problem is that the character is a bit of a blank slate, though this is less Horn's fault than the source material and screenplay. Particularly given a reveal near the end of the film, I wonder if there wasn't a better movie to be made in which all the narrative weight didn't lie on his shoulders, but was shared in parallel with another character (as I understand the book is, mixing Oskar's story with flashbacks that are entirely absent from the film).
  • Much of the reaction to the film (particularly the negative reaction) seems to be centered on how 9/11 plays a prominent role in the film. I'm wondering if a better movie could have been made by excising 9/11 entirely from it--have Hanks' character die in a random act of violence rather than one fraught with such emotion. Admittedly, this requires some rejiggering of plot elements, but less than you might think, and might have allowed both the filmmakers and the audience to focus on a small portrait of grief rather than trying to create a large and universal one.

There are some moments in the film that really work (particularly a couple of scenes between Bullock and Horn and von Sydow's wordless, but world-weary, performance), but on the whole, I found it an interesting example of a film that tries too hard to say everything, and, as a result, winds up saying pretty much nothing.

9 comments:

  1. Paul Tabachneck8:46 AM

    What really creams my corn about the backlash against this movie is that if they had chosen to excise 9/11, the critics would have been all WHY DOES HOLLYWOOD WANT TO ACT LIKE 9/11 DIDN'T HAPPEN?  You can't win that game.  I liked the movie, and felt like the screenwriter took an approach I could back sticking with one narrative structure.

    Now, you want to talk awful adaptations, let's talk Time-Traveler's Wife.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I haven't seen the movie, and I read the book back in 2005 (i.e., forever ago), but it's hard for me to see it all working without 9/11.  Now, that may be related to the effective deletion of the Dresden plotline -- maybe without that, it's just much less about the tragedies writ large and more focused on the individual ones.  But, for better or for worse, Foer set out to write a post-9/11 book, and that's what he did.  Again, I'm not saying the movie couldn't have worked without it, especially given the removal of the Dresden stuff.  But it would have been a movie only loosely based on the book, if memory serves.

    On the topic of post-9/11 books:  My favorites are Ian McEwan's Saturday, which i thought evoked the feeling of the era beautifully (even if the plot relied too much on convenient coincidences) and Joseph O'Neill's Netherland, which just... wow.    

    ReplyDelete
  3. lisased10:09 AM

    Agreed. I was furious at the end of that one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Paul Tabachneck12:13 PM

    I was so mad about that one that I went off on a tirade about it at my wine bar gig that night and accidentally spoiled the book for a whole reading club at the back table.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I feel like 9/11 was an essential element. (SPOILERS ahead.) As a New Yorker, when the kid went from home to home, I thought it was somewhat unrealistic that all of these New Yorkers would open their homes to a stranger, even if he was a kid. But when we learn at the end that the mother had preceded his visits - and presumably explained how her boy lost his father - it made sense to me.  I'm not sure if they would open their doors to any kid who lost his father, but given how the city bonded in the wake of 9/11, I feel sure that after hearing that story, they would.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Carrie2:58 PM

    Can we start a support group? I gave it a positive review and was reamed and creamed by my critical colleagues. 

    ReplyDelete
  7. lisased7:09 PM

    My friends know not to mention that movie in my presence. I might have thrown something.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous9:44 PM

    I liked it.  I didn't love it but I liked it.  I'll join your support group, Carrie!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Megan9:59 PM

    I also liked the movie. I also read the book what seems like forever ago and realized there was a plot line missing, but couldn't really remember what was missing. Not that he'll win, but I can see why von Sydow recieved an Oscar nomination. Best part of the movie. 

    ReplyDelete