Hey, everyone. “Moriarty” here.
Well, congratulations, Kelly Masterson. You have got to be feeling like you won some sort of screenwriter’s lottery right about now. And congratulations to Michael Cerenzie and Brian Linse and Paul Parmar. You guys just hit the ground running as producers, and you have a real opportunity here to build off of the momentum of this movie.
But the biggest congratulations on this one have to be reserved for Sidney Lumet, who already had at least six great films under his belt before I was even born, and who helped define the heights of the ‘70s on film with titles like NETWORK and DOG DAY AFTERNOON and SERPICO. Lumet’s 83 years old, and he’s already been given a Lifetime Achievement Academy Award, so he could easily be forgiven if he never really knocked one out of the ballpark again. He’s a real filmmaker, though, one of those guys who still has the fire in his belly no matter how old he gets, no matter what accomplishments he’s already got to his name. He didn’t have to make BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU’RE DEAD... but he did, and 2007’s already rich release schedule got a lot more interesting as a result.
On the surface, this is a simple genre exercise, a noir film that uses the slippery nature of a crime gone wrong as a way of dissecting a family. What makes this something more than just another crime film is the way Lumet disconnects us in time in order to underscore the tragedy of the events. So often in this post-Tarantino landscape, filmmakers use fractured timelines for simple effect, because it’s cool, or to make some ironic post-modern points. But Lumet uses it to make sure that each wound Masterson’s script inflicts does the most possible damage, so we understand just what’s at stake for this family and just how fucked they really are as things unfold. It’s devastating, and I think Lumet and Masterson deserve credit for never taking their feet off the gas as they drive these characters to hell as fast as they possibly can. It’s bleak, but it’s not unpleasant. Far from it, actually. There’s something almost intoxicating about watching a family meltdown this horrible.
Philip Seymour Hoffman. Ethan Hawke. Albert Finney. Marisa Tomei. Four actors who have all had their highs and lows on film. And this year, the four of them seem to have clicked with what Lumet was doing, and the result is that all of them turn in some of the finest work of their careers. Hawke’s one of those guys who can be great in the right role, and who can be a big bag of nothing when left to his own devices. Here, he plays a memorable loser, his pathetic desperation serving as the fuel that keeps this particular tragedy in motion. I think the reason I buy this one, the reason I feel like it rings true and doesn’t just play as “another crime film,” is because there aren’t any contrivances involved in the way things play out. You’re not asked to swallow some huge improbability in order to accept what you’re watching. Instead, the motivations that drive everyone’s actions are completely recognizable. The fear of disappointing one’s parents is a potent thing for many of us, and I love how both Hoffman and Hawke struggle with those same feelings of inadequacy, each of them sure that the other has the easier ride. It’s easy to see why they both feel that way as the film rolls on and we get a chance to see more and more of Finney in action. He’s a fascinating monster, and the failings of his sons are definitely failings that have their origins in his own behavior.
Much has been written about the frank sexual nature of Tomei’s work in the film, and the only thing I found really surprising about it is the timing. At 43, one might excuse her if she played down the sexuality instead of playing it up, but she makes 43 look very, very good. Her repeated nudity in the film is not just a way for an actress to get people talking, though. Instead, it’s part of what defines Gina, the character she’s playing. She uses sex to keep her husband (Hoffman) in line and she uses it to manipulate her husband’s brother (Hawke) as well. She counts on her appearance to be her bargaining chit, the thing that gets her what she wants. Gradually, though, we see the toll it takes on her, and if anyone in the film is really struggling with their personal moral compass, it’s her. Not Finney, though. Not even a little bit. He knows exactly how he defines right and wrong. The thing is, no one around him seems to understand just how Finney defines those ideas, so they aren’t prepared for the way he reacts when he is confronted with a wrong he can hardly comprehend, one that costs him dearly.
The best thing about this film is the way it takes its time setting up, allowing the eventual payoff to pack a bigger impact. I always find inevitability to be one of the key ingredients in tragedy, and this film is ripe with it. As soon as a few key choices are made by a few key players, there’s no way to escape the ending of the film. The awful, dark pleasure here is watching that inevitability play out, and Ron Fortunato’s rough-hewn photography and Carter Burwell’s simple score both perfectly compliment the script. Lumet shows as sure a hand now, as keen a sense of why people behave the way they do, as he did in 12 ANGRY MEN or DOG DAY AFTERNOON, and it’s nice to see that the spirit of those films is alive and well and playing right now at a theater near you.
Here’s hoping Lumet is still just warming up.
Drew McWeeny, Los Angeles
Drew McWeeny, Los Angeles
