Monthly Archives: January 2016

  • Confessions of a Dangerous Mind

    George Clooney (2002)

    Once I’d finished watching George Clooney’s directing debut, from a screenplay by Charlie Kaufman, the next port of call had to be Wikipedia – to find out more about the film’s subject, Chuck Barris.   It’s a long time since I’ve seen an American movie where I felt so clueless about its frame of reference, and in which the film-makers seemed to take for granted prior knowledge of the main character and his context.  Barris is, according to Wikipedia, ‘an American game show producer and presenter who was responsible for many of the best known game shows of the 1960s and 1970s’.  These shows include, inter alia, The Dating Game (the basis for Blind Date in Britain) and The Gong Show (the early stages of Britain’s Got Talent work on a similar principle to this).   Barris’s influence on TV culture is clearly unarguable; but in 1984 he published an autobiography, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, in which he claimed also to have worked for the CIA as an assassin during the previous two decades.   It’s this dual career that forms the narrative of the film.

    I assumed at the start – misled by a legend on the screen which I took to mean that Kaufman had drawn on documents which became available posthumously – that Barris was already dead but this turns out to be a gag.  At the end, we’re shown a photograph of him, taken in 2002.  Wikipedia confirms he’s still alive, now in his eightieth year, and that he ‘tends to neither confirm nor deny … in interviews’ his CIA history.   The Agency have hotly denied any truth to Barris’s claims and, as he’s evidently not disclosed any facts about his CIA work that would put the matter beyond reasonable doubt, you can only suppose that the disclosure in his autobiography was as tantalisingly brief as it was sensational.

    My main problem with Confessions was that Chuck Barris didn’t seem to me a sufficiently interesting subject for a feature film unless the CIA career was a true story – or made to seem like a true story.   (I might have thought differently if I’d already known of Barris as a television figure but that wouldn’t make this a better film.)    It’s a good joke that the CIA adventures take place in the various European locations chosen as the destinations for the winning couple in The Dating Game but the style of these sequences is a mixture of slapstick and spot-the-spy-film-references (which I was no good at, although I recognised the John Barry ‘Friday’s Child’ theme from The Quiller Memorandum).  They don’t lead anywhere much;  and Clooney and Kaufman don’t seem interested in doing much with the ironic or satirical potential of the combination of Barris’s two lines of work.  (Both of these, in their different ways, sustain core American values.)

    As Barris, Sam Rockwell moves from his late teens to his early fifties yet doesn’t age.  He seems unchangingly callow and ingratiating, and I couldn’t help thinking this reflected the actor’s eagerness to please more than that of the character.  (There’s no obvious reason to think it was a characteristic of Barris.)  Rockwell is proficient but his game-for-anything brightness feels worked up.  This appears to have been his first leading cinema role (by coincidence, I’d seen him – for the first time – in Frost/Nixon, just a few days before seeing Confessions).  There are times when a relatively unfamiliar actor– as an unknown quantity who doesn’t remind us of himself in other roles – can benefit a film (Adrien Brody in The Pianist is a good example); but I think the reverse happens here and that Rockwell is disadvantaged in the company of Clooney, Julia Roberts, Rutger Hauer et al.  (The ‘al’ include Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, as two of the contestant bachelors on The Dating Game.)  All these stars can relax into their roles, comfortable in the knowledge that we know who they are and that that’s probably enough with this sort of material.   Drew Barrymore (as a girl who’s persistently devoted to Chuck) and Maggie Gyllenhaal (as one who comes and goes from his life more quickly and carelessly) can’t be complacent to the same degree but both are skilful and likeable.

    Confessions is brightly coloured and terrifically alive in visual terms (the cinematographer was Newton Thomas Sigel and the editor Stephen Mirrione).  It’s reasonably entertaining but it’s not particularly likeable – it’s the only thing I’ve so far seen from him that’s left me feeling a little antipathetic towards George Clooney.  The sense of being excluded from a collection of private jokes as you watch this film is irritatingly strong; the attempts to get laughs out of minor characters’ ugly mugs may be the most discomfiting aspect of the cliquishness.  (These attempts come across as a smug reminder that it’s better to look like George Clooney or Julia Roberts; and Bachelor No 3 on The Dating Game line-up has to be a geek ghastly enough to counterbalance Pitt and Damon.)   The most interesting and mysterious element of Confessions is the contrast between Clooney’s rather chaotic direction – he and his friends evidently had more fun making the film than they’ve been able to impart to the  audience – and the extraordinary precision and wit of his own performance as Chuck Barris’s CIA recruiting officer.  As an actor, Clooney appears to know exactly what he’s doing – and he’s highly enjoyable – yet neither he nor Charlie Kaufman, although they come up with some inventive moments, seems able to find a coherent way of presenting the Barris story.

    30 January 2009

  • Compliance

    Craig Zobel (2012)

    The writer-director Craig Zobel has a gripping subject here but he also has a problem.  This account of the consequences of a prank phone call to an Ohio fast food diner – shocking to the cinema audience; world-shattering to some of those on the receiving end of the call, from a man posing as a police officer – is ‘inspired by true events’.  Yet the dupes’ obedient reactions, which give the film its name, are often incredible.  If Zobel had waited until the end to reveal that all was true he’d likely have lost the audience.  People would have dismissed the events in the office at the back of the diner (‘ChickWich’) as preposterously unlikely.  No closing words on the screen confirming that these events really happened would have rescued the movie.  It’s understandable, therefore, that there are legends at the start of the film to assure the audience that what they’re about to see, although it might seem unbelievable, is true and that ‘nothing is exaggerated’. (The Wikipedia entry for Compliance suggests that it’s based specifically on the ‘Bullitt County McDonald’s case’ of 2004.)  But Craig Zobel goes further in the preamble:  he invokes the notorious Milgram experiments of the early 1960s and, in doing so, he miscalculates.  He makes it immediately clear that what follows is to be a demonstration of what people will do when they think an authority figure is telling them to do it.  Playing the film’s hand in this way limits Compliance both as a drama and in its ability to surprise.  What follows is absorbing and often uncomfortable to watch but, in the light of this introduction, it’s hardly unexpected.

    The chief dupe in the story is Sandra (Ann Dowd), the fiftyish manager of the diner.   The voice of ‘Officer Daniels’ tells her that one of her employees, a young woman called Becky (Dreama Walker), has stolen money from the purse of a ChickWich diner.  Officer Daniels, who claims that the diner’s evidence is conclusive and to have conferred with Sandra’s regional manager, instructs Sandra to strip-search Becky.  After some hesitation, Sandra agrees to do so.   She’s told to put Becky’s clothes in a bag on the front passenger seat of Sandra’s car and to leave the car door unlocked.  She does that too.   The voice keeps assuring Sandra that the police will be arriving soon.  When she gets anxious about their non-arrival, he explains that Becky is part of a larger police investigation into possession of marijuana.   After the caller’s face and surroundings have been revealed to the audience, Daniels (Pat Healy) tells Sandra that it would be advisable for a man to take over from her and stay with Becky ‘for security reasons’.  Sandra is more than happy to agree to this so that she can get back to the busy restaurant.  The first choice is a young man called Kevin (Philip Ettinger), although Sandra considers him a reliably unreliable worker.  When Officer Daniels asks Kevin to tell Becky to remove the ChickWich apron covering her nakedness, he refuses.  When the caller barks out, ‘Were you two ever an item?’, Kevin is convinced that he’s talking to a pervert rather than a police officer.

    Frustrated by Kevin’s usual insubordination and increasingly anxious to do what Officer Daniels tells her, Sandra phones her fiancé, Van (Bill Camp).  He called her earlier to ask if it was OK for him to go out with some workmates for a drink.  She readily agreed but Sandra is a kind of authority figure to Van and he now aborts his social evening without much protest.   Van proves much more amenable than Kevin to the instructions from Officer Daniels and Becky’s apron comes off.   By this point, her own resistance to the humiliating ordeal she’s being subjected to is fragile.  Threatened that she’ll go to prison if she doesn’t do as she’s told, Becky accedes to the voice’s demands.  Van spanks her; she performs oral sex on him.  Mortified by what he’s done, Van hurriedly leaves the diner.  Sandra then enlists the janitor, an elderly man called Harold (Stephen Payne), to take over.  He immediately objects to the caller’s instructions and tells Sandra what those instructions are.  She can’t disbelieve Harold the way she disbelieved Kevin so, very belatedly, she phones her regional manager to check that he’s in the picture, as Officer Daniels said he was.  The scam is exposed.  Everything that happened in the office has been captured on CCTV.

    Craig Zobel doesn’t implicate the viewer in the story to the extent that you feel, ‘Yes, I suppose I’d probably have done what Sandra did in the circumstances’.  The main reason you don’t feel that is because Kevin and Harold manage to say no and because the participation of Sandra’s (female) deputy Marti (Ashlie Atkinson) is persistently uneasy and half-hearted.  You can see how the situation might have been avoided by stronger-minded people.  As a result, when, at the end of the film, Zobel brings up statistics about the number of events of this kind – over 70 similar incidents occurred in 30 US states – you don’t, pace Milgram, think:  that’s because of what human being are like.  You rather think: there are some stupid people around, like Sandra and her short-lived fiancé.   Compliance turns out to be uncomfortable less because of its central theme than because you’re made to feel (a) a bit of a voyeur and (b) superior to characters in it, even though all the actors are good.  Van is especially harshly treated:  he is horny as well as dim.  He’s baffled by the phone instructions but you also feel he can hardly believe his luck being given official instruction to handle a pretty young woman’s naked body.  This sequence has a grim resonance with the early exchange in Compliance when Becky sniggers to Marti about the middle-aged Sandra’s references to her late-blooming sex life with Van.

    The striking look of the film and its soundtrack are self-consciously arty.  The close-up shots of fries and burgers and styrofoam cups and the discordant music (by Heather McIntosh) are ominously incongruent with the scale of human frailty on display within the diner.  As for the villain of the piece, he’s never quite as powerful once he’s seen as he was when only heard.  Pat Healy’s face expresses the nasty feelings impelling the caller’s behaviour.  In this respect too, the audience is one up on the ChickWich staff.  When you see him losing control it’s hard to suspend disbelief that his voice never communicates these slips to those he’s talking to in the diner.  It’s an effective touch that the scam both begins and ends as matter of factly as it does:  Sandra picks up the phone to start her first conversation with Officer Daniels and eventually picks up the phone to talk to her boss.  Elsewhere, Zobel contrasts perhaps too crudely Sandra’s frazzled obedience in the back office with her getting back to front-of-house work.  Ann Dowd’s performance as Sandra has been rightly praised, though.  She leavens Sandra’s knee-jerk truckling with a more affecting anxiety to be liked and to show that she’s in charge.   The end of the film is too rushed – the events that follow the discovery of the scam, and which take place over a period of days and weeks, are summarised perfunctorily.  (There’s no indication here that the culprit – a telemarketer and a family man – was charged but eventually found not guilty, which is what happened in the case of the man arrested for the Bullitt County McDonald’s call, and suspected of many others.)  The very last scene of Compliance works, though.  Sandra, now without a job or a fiancé, is interviewed by a smartly aggressive journalist.   Here is another man in charge and Ann Dowd brings out strongly Sandra’s natural reaction to be ingratiating and to do what the journalist says.  Until the voice of her unseen lawyer calls out:  ‘Sandra, we don’t have to answer those kinds of question’.

    26 March 2013

     

Posts navigation