|
|
|
  
|
Classic Movie of the Week OnM - May 31, 2002 ******* The screenplay (...) resembles, in superficial ways, the battle in David Mamet's Oleanna. Both films are about how the same events can be interpreted differently through male and female eyes. But Mamet is angry and has a point of view-- two points of view, really-- while (this screenwriter's) subject is points of view. And sneaking along underneath the argument about what happened, on that long ago night, is the question of who has the right to make use of it now. In a lesser film, the conflict would be between (...) two boys fighting over the same girl, as she looks dutifully back and forth like a spectator at a tennis match. But (here) she is more than a match for them, and besides, this is a struggle of ethics, not gender. No one is clearly right or wrong. The same information, viewed through different prisms, shifts righteousness from one character to another. ............ Roger Ebert ******* When you're not happy in your own life, it's funny how you look into your past and see (...) where you took a wrong road, where things went wrong. All you can do is look back; it takes a lot to just move on, and just say OK, that was me then. You're always trying to rework the past, put it in some a new context, just to try to heal yourself. ............ Richard Linklater ******* I haven't been out to see a stage play in a least a couple of years, and before that it goes back at least several decades until the time that I was working in the food service at a local college. That particular school happened to have an extremely fine drama department, and they typically put on 4 to 6 fairly serious productions per year, plus several minor ones. I checked out about 2 to 3 per year on average, for the three years I spent in the college's employ. Not surprisingly, I was also a fairly regular attendee at the school's film series, which ran weekly in one of the larger lecture halls, and had a paltry $1.25 admission fee for students and $1.50 for employees. The films were usually 'second runs', often on 16mm prints, released at about the point in time that we would expect to see a video nowadays, or of course 'classics' from any number of previous decades. (There were no 'home' videos then, this was like 1973-ish and Beta cassettes only existed as a 3/4" professional tape format. VHS and laserdisc were still 4 and 7 years in the future respectively, DVD nearly 25.) The two media of film and stage are very different, although the desired goals entertainment-wise are very similar. Both involve the use of writers, directors, actors and production people, and both can be either mindless fluff or hard core thought-pieces or any mixture thereof. While I can enjoy either play or film, I confess that I lean towards film, although that may simply be the case because I have had a long term hobby interest in photography, and it's always another layer for me to appreciate when I see any reasonably well crafted movie. In many cases, people who have seen both a stage play and a movie that was subsequently made from it generally express a preference for the play, often citing as reason the 'immediacy' of the stage, which I can certainly appreciate. Also, stage acting demands that you make very few errors, there are no retakes after rehearsal is over and the curtain is up-- only the very creme de la creme of the acting profession gets to have a long career on the stage. On the other hand, movies can do things that are difficult or even impossible to achieve in a live production, and this week's Classic Movie is a good example of that. The director, Richard Linklater, even considered making this 'one-act' production a 'cinema verite' type of work, all one long take, but eventually decided against doing so, because he wanted to achieve some goals that could not be done 'live', and using the 'traditional' language of cinema seemed the best way to do so. Tape may employ the 'traditions' of movie-making, but it still cheerfully and inventively bends and twists them around a bit. Linklater chose to shoot on high-resolution videotape with two largely mobile and/or hand-held cameras, one by his primary cinematographer and the other by himself. The actual production schedule was very quick, just a matter of weeks, and the cost was only a few hundred thousand dollars, a mere pittance even by conventional 'indie' standards. Like in the play, only three actors were used, and all of the action concerns their largely verbal and body-language interaction. That being said, Tape is very clearly a 'film', not just a film of a play. The movie's opening scene presents us with a seedy-looking fellow named Vince (Ethan Hawke), who is alone in a semi-shabby-looking motel room somewhere in Lansing, Michigan. It is fairly clear that he isn't just there while 'passing through town', but that he is nervously setting up to do... something or other. He seems to be in a funk of scarcely contained hyperactivity-- he gulps down beers, moves the furniture just so, even takes off his pants (he's wearing boxers underneath) and somehow lets us know subconsciously that this is all part and parcel of whatever he has planned to do. The questions thus raised begin to beget an answer when there is a knock at the door, and a man named John (Robert Sean Leonard) enters. We soon find out they went to high school together about ten ago. John is a filmmaker, not yet a very famous one it seems, who is in town to show his latest work at a local film festival, and while he seems initially glad to see his 'old friend', there is also obvious tension lurking in the wings, and for good reason, as it turns out. It appears that there is an unresolved issue regarding an old mutual girlfriend (Uma Thurman), who doesn't actually show up in person until the film is nearing the one-hour mark. This movie substantially rewards repeated viewings, and depending on your willingness to accept very little action apart from the cleverly and realistically written verbal sparring that takes place for the initial half-hour or so, may take a while to draw you in. Linklater scrupulously avoids the standard cinematic cliche of 'explaining everything all at once', and lets the story evolve pretty much in 'real time'. Please don't begin watching Tape if you are feeling tired or bored, and do stick with it a little while-- it will get your attention as you start to latch on to the dynamic between the characters. Tape brings up a lot of excellent points to ponder that we have seen throughout BtVS season six-- the nature of inappropriate actions, the rationales for same, and the acceptance of or abdication of guilt for either participating in or initiating said actions. At the end of the movie, there may seem to be a resolution of sorts, but it only seems so. There are no simple answers to some issues, and rather than try to pretend that there are, Tape leaves us with the idea that we can accept the past for what is is, and maybe move beyond our prior bad choices, but that they will always haunt us to some degree. Life isn't bliss, life is just this, it's living.
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum, OnM
******* Technical verite: Tape is available on DVD, which was the format of the review copy. The film was released in 2001 and running time is 1 hour and 24 minutes. The original theatrical aspect ratio was 1.85:1 which was preserved on the DVD edition. The 'film' itself was shot on high resolution video and transferred to 35mm for theatrical release. The soundtrack format is standard Dolby Surround. The screenplay was by Stephen Belber, which was based on his play. Videography was by Maryse Alberti and Richard Linklater, with film editing by Sandra Adair. Cast overview:
Ethan Hawke .... Vincent ******* The Question of the Week: As mentioned in the beginning of this week's review, stage plays have been a favorite source of inspiration for many filmmakers over the decades. What is your favorite film based on a play, and why did you like it? Assuming that you have also been fortunate enough to have seen the preceding stage production, was the film version better than the play, about the same overall quality but 'different', or good but not as good as the original production? Post 'em etc. et al, and see you next week, when I hope to present a recommendation for an interesting film based on an equally interesting novel. Take care!
*******
|
