in one of the planet of the apes films, an
scientist attempts to describe how the ape corneilius and his
lawfully wedded spouse have travelled through time in order to
arrive on earth. the explaination includes a convoluted
description of infinite regress which involves a painting of a
painter painting a picture of himself painting a picture of
himself painting a picture... it is this kind of dizzying
voyuerism which makes watching depalma's latest, 'snake eyes' at
once a visual treat and yet another convoluted commentary on a
nation fixated on media.
there are few things more delicious than
hindsight, and in a culture where everyone wants to get the story
straight (forget the truth - just get the story), nothing excites
so much as the endless rehash of conspiracy theories when
"wait! it gets better". in this snake eyes paces in a
near-realtime with first person flashbacks serving as revelation.
what a blast. in this snake eyes has visually delivered in the
way that 'brainstorms' and 'the conversation' as well as
depalma's own 'blow out' did without the numbing overstimulation
that 'strange days' often achieved and without the breathless
victimology of 'nick of time'.
i came to the theatre on the recommendation
that the first scene proceded without cuts in a way to put
altman's 'the player' to shame. it did, but some of the long
sweeping blurry pans were unnerving. something a bit more crisp
would have been more to my likeing. on the other hand, the
dramatic effect seeing through the eyes of a terrified woman who
has lost her glasses was superb, even though her acting sucked
big time.
in fact, this bit of miscasting almost destroys
the film - so much could have been done with a plucky young naif
who lived by a strict moral code now running for her life in a
giant casino only to be rescued (perhaps) by a dirtbag detective
who is forced to behave morally despite his desire to get another
payoff. but considering the lack of acting skills exhibited by
this actress, it's probably better that the script only had one
scene in which this dynamic expresses itself and both actors are
sitting down.
the pleasant surprise is that the voyeurism
continues after that bit of contrivance which stands at the
climax, and cage is quite successful in casting the moral of this
tale - "why me? i didn't have to know this!" it's a
pleasant retreat from the films of excess which engage us
endlessly in their lurid visions of ever increasing bizarreness.
and i take that to be a good sign that all thrillers needn't make
you feel repulsively attracted to a filmmaker's ability to
cinematically depict evil incarnate. snake eyes' rick santoro
thus represents a different kind of flawed hero, not one who is
drawn inexorably into the abyss through the seduction/obsession
of evil, but one who recognizes vaguely, and then through the
turn of circumstance, very sharply the price of one's own
ordinary flaws, when turning away from evil makes one courageous.
santoro's purging should be ours, and we should
lose everything to find the clear ability to deny the temptation
corruption ultimately offers us. evil, as portrayed by a
ruthlessly tight-assed gary sinise, knows us very well, and it
will come up with the best reasons for us to sidle over the line.
btw. this is stan shaw's best performance ever.
i was prepared to be pissed at hollywood for casting shaw as just
another big black lug. but shaw's portrayal of lincoln tyler is
the real standout supporting role here.
visually inspiring and inventive, morally
tight, unevenly performed, somewhat contrived, somewhat
thrilling. 84%
and now that i think about it, tyler forecasts
the entire future dilemma for santoro. so why didn't santoro pay
closer attention? why didn't i? perhaps its because of how tyler
caves in the end. hmmmm.
