INFORMERS
I haven't commented on a film on IMDB in years but this movie seems to be getting mostly slammed so I feel a need to log one for other side because I am definitely a fan.
I'm going to talk about the movie as a whole, so consider this SPOILERS warning.
I can see why some people wouldn't like this movie. It's definitely not a comedy and it's definitely not mainstream. The majority of the characters are not likable, though most of them are sympathetic- which is what I think bothers so many audience members: you can't automatically hate Graham, Les, Christie, Laura, Carole, etc. because you pity them, and maybe even empathize with them. And that is a feeling most people don't want to feel, especially at the movies, where we have been led to believe we should always expect characters we want to relate to, and a few hours of escape from reality to boot.
This movie isn't an escape. It's glitzy and polished, it's full of beautiful people, but that's the lure that gets you into the trap. And this movie is a trap: it's about how there is no escape because life doesn't end just because the credits roll and the things you do and are done to you are going to be with you forever. So choose wisely- or at the very least, humanely. That's the lesson Graham is supposed to learn in this film. The ending is ambiguous as to if he learns it or not. Either way, it's not a lesson most of us want to be confronted with, especially on a night out, and it's really not something we want to be confronted with by a movie only to have the movie fail to then tell us what to think by having a clear cut resolution for the character. One of the reasons I don't like BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN is that I feel it not only depicts mostly fairly despicable objects of pity- IT ROMANTICIZES them. Nothing in THE INFORMERS is romantic. It's the anti-thesis of romantic. Because of that I find the movie brave instead of offensive by its decision to focus on the ugly, damaged people of the world. This is best demonstrated in the scene where Laura and William, in the midst of a fight about his mistress, must stop so she can give him an insulin shot. Here they are, two glamorous people with money out of their ears and no "real" problems except one another and yet he still needs someone to take care of him and she knows she can't say no in this situation. People get trapped like this every day.
There is a lot of bile thrown at this film for it's lack of morality but I actually find the film very moral: the idea of "good" is integral to the story and characters. It just never gets defined. Which is true for most people in the real world too, unless they have subscribed to some notion of "good" outside of themselves- i.e. religion, the law, etc. The people in the INFORMERS have been placed outside of the usual social constructs of good, however, because they are famous (The Rock Star), wealthy (William and Laura), beautiful (Graham, Martin, Christie), losers (Jack and his uncle), observers (Carole) or liars (Tim) and so now they must struggle to find a new morality- which is hard when you're living in a society that doesn't appreciate thinking for yourself and if anything encourages everyone to look, act and think the same (LA/Hollywood). There is a reason why almost all the outsiders in the movie are brunettes. There is also a reason why they are almost always the most thoughtful, sympathetic people in the story (Raymond, Rachel, Nina, and even Susan is clearly a bottle blonde starting to let her roots show). This movie is about people who have been conforming/buying into the glitz and gluttony game, but who are waking up to realize (mostly too late) what they may have lost for doing so. Some of them are struggling not to vanish. Some of them are even trying to warn us. That's where the title comes from.
The technical parts of the movie are hard to fault. It looks beautiful and the dialogue and scenes move with a sleek economy, reduced to the bare bones of what each character, scene, story needs. Perhaps people don't realize this is a drama because it's not overblown like most Hollywood dramas. There are no big speeches. There are no tears. There are few breakdowns. But there often aren't in real life, especially amongst people who are not good at being in touch with their feelings. And if these people were good at being in touch with their feelings, chances are the stuff that happens to them, wouldn't be happening. Of course, we want them to have these big "moments" in the same way we want people we love but who are emotionally shut off to open up and cry and do all those things we hope they will do to heal. But most of the people in this story don't want to heal. As Tim informs his dad, it's just too late for most of them. And Tim knows, anyway, that one of the best ways to hurt someone who loves you but has fucked up, is not to yell at them, but rather to simply not respond to them at all or give them the satisfaction of knowing what you feel. I wish to God that was only something that happened in THE INFORMERS but it's not- and I have the ex-boyfriends to prove it.
The acting is beautiful and largely understated. Lines are delivered the way people talk. Kim Basinger is particularly good but Jon Foster should also be given props for being both a beautiful man and a good actor; between the two of them they carry the film. Brad Renfro is, however, the emotional center of the film and his character would be haunting even without the shadow of Renfro's actual death last year. The decision to alter the ending of Jack's story from the book (where he is called Tommy) is a good one and makes sense in light of the decision to combine him with the doorman who chats up Graham while they watch a shooting on the streets- one of the best scenes in the movie. Of the supporting cast Cameron Goodman really stands out as the acerbic, frustrated Susan who is the only person in her family not self-medicating; Jessica Stroup is a memorable Rachel, even if she is gipped out of her best scene in the book. Lou Taylor Pucci nails the angry young gay man still trying to come out of the closet, and is probably one of the most accurate (if not exactly flattering) portrayals of gay youth I've seen in a long time.
The movie isn't flawless. There is a scene between Rachel and Les in the book that I would have loved to see included. Carole's story feels a bit too abbreviated and could have used one more scene of closure. Susan's escape on the train from LA would have been a nice way to bring a bit more balance to the bleakness of the film. A male on male kiss would have been nice, though I applaud the film for being as up front as it was with the bisexuality and in the book there are no gay sex scenes so I can understand the choice to avoid them in the movie- especially if you consider the implication that any tenderness between Graham and Martin is something they are hoping to ignore themselves and dismiss as "just sex". In the end, though, these flaws are really just a wish list because I wanted to see more of this story and these people; there are no missteps in the film itself, from my perspective. And maybe it's best that we don't get more; as the final image of Christie on the beach, waiting for death, tells us: ignorance is often its own kind of bliss.
I'm going to talk about the movie as a whole, so consider this SPOILERS warning.
I can see why some people wouldn't like this movie. It's definitely not a comedy and it's definitely not mainstream. The majority of the characters are not likable, though most of them are sympathetic- which is what I think bothers so many audience members: you can't automatically hate Graham, Les, Christie, Laura, Carole, etc. because you pity them, and maybe even empathize with them. And that is a feeling most people don't want to feel, especially at the movies, where we have been led to believe we should always expect characters we want to relate to, and a few hours of escape from reality to boot.
This movie isn't an escape. It's glitzy and polished, it's full of beautiful people, but that's the lure that gets you into the trap. And this movie is a trap: it's about how there is no escape because life doesn't end just because the credits roll and the things you do and are done to you are going to be with you forever. So choose wisely- or at the very least, humanely. That's the lesson Graham is supposed to learn in this film. The ending is ambiguous as to if he learns it or not. Either way, it's not a lesson most of us want to be confronted with, especially on a night out, and it's really not something we want to be confronted with by a movie only to have the movie fail to then tell us what to think by having a clear cut resolution for the character. One of the reasons I don't like BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN is that I feel it not only depicts mostly fairly despicable objects of pity- IT ROMANTICIZES them. Nothing in THE INFORMERS is romantic. It's the anti-thesis of romantic. Because of that I find the movie brave instead of offensive by its decision to focus on the ugly, damaged people of the world. This is best demonstrated in the scene where Laura and William, in the midst of a fight about his mistress, must stop so she can give him an insulin shot. Here they are, two glamorous people with money out of their ears and no "real" problems except one another and yet he still needs someone to take care of him and she knows she can't say no in this situation. People get trapped like this every day.
There is a lot of bile thrown at this film for it's lack of morality but I actually find the film very moral: the idea of "good" is integral to the story and characters. It just never gets defined. Which is true for most people in the real world too, unless they have subscribed to some notion of "good" outside of themselves- i.e. religion, the law, etc. The people in the INFORMERS have been placed outside of the usual social constructs of good, however, because they are famous (The Rock Star), wealthy (William and Laura), beautiful (Graham, Martin, Christie), losers (Jack and his uncle), observers (Carole) or liars (Tim) and so now they must struggle to find a new morality- which is hard when you're living in a society that doesn't appreciate thinking for yourself and if anything encourages everyone to look, act and think the same (LA/Hollywood). There is a reason why almost all the outsiders in the movie are brunettes. There is also a reason why they are almost always the most thoughtful, sympathetic people in the story (Raymond, Rachel, Nina, and even Susan is clearly a bottle blonde starting to let her roots show). This movie is about people who have been conforming/buying into the glitz and gluttony game, but who are waking up to realize (mostly too late) what they may have lost for doing so. Some of them are struggling not to vanish. Some of them are even trying to warn us. That's where the title comes from.
The technical parts of the movie are hard to fault. It looks beautiful and the dialogue and scenes move with a sleek economy, reduced to the bare bones of what each character, scene, story needs. Perhaps people don't realize this is a drama because it's not overblown like most Hollywood dramas. There are no big speeches. There are no tears. There are few breakdowns. But there often aren't in real life, especially amongst people who are not good at being in touch with their feelings. And if these people were good at being in touch with their feelings, chances are the stuff that happens to them, wouldn't be happening. Of course, we want them to have these big "moments" in the same way we want people we love but who are emotionally shut off to open up and cry and do all those things we hope they will do to heal. But most of the people in this story don't want to heal. As Tim informs his dad, it's just too late for most of them. And Tim knows, anyway, that one of the best ways to hurt someone who loves you but has fucked up, is not to yell at them, but rather to simply not respond to them at all or give them the satisfaction of knowing what you feel. I wish to God that was only something that happened in THE INFORMERS but it's not- and I have the ex-boyfriends to prove it.
The acting is beautiful and largely understated. Lines are delivered the way people talk. Kim Basinger is particularly good but Jon Foster should also be given props for being both a beautiful man and a good actor; between the two of them they carry the film. Brad Renfro is, however, the emotional center of the film and his character would be haunting even without the shadow of Renfro's actual death last year. The decision to alter the ending of Jack's story from the book (where he is called Tommy) is a good one and makes sense in light of the decision to combine him with the doorman who chats up Graham while they watch a shooting on the streets- one of the best scenes in the movie. Of the supporting cast Cameron Goodman really stands out as the acerbic, frustrated Susan who is the only person in her family not self-medicating; Jessica Stroup is a memorable Rachel, even if she is gipped out of her best scene in the book. Lou Taylor Pucci nails the angry young gay man still trying to come out of the closet, and is probably one of the most accurate (if not exactly flattering) portrayals of gay youth I've seen in a long time.
The movie isn't flawless. There is a scene between Rachel and Les in the book that I would have loved to see included. Carole's story feels a bit too abbreviated and could have used one more scene of closure. Susan's escape on the train from LA would have been a nice way to bring a bit more balance to the bleakness of the film. A male on male kiss would have been nice, though I applaud the film for being as up front as it was with the bisexuality and in the book there are no gay sex scenes so I can understand the choice to avoid them in the movie- especially if you consider the implication that any tenderness between Graham and Martin is something they are hoping to ignore themselves and dismiss as "just sex". In the end, though, these flaws are really just a wish list because I wanted to see more of this story and these people; there are no missteps in the film itself, from my perspective. And maybe it's best that we don't get more; as the final image of Christie on the beach, waiting for death, tells us: ignorance is often its own kind of bliss.
posted by Stuart Bousel | 11:39 AM
|
0 comments
