"Closer"

[CK1]

Any thoughts on this film, adapted from Patrick Marber's play?

I absolutely loved it. One of the best films I've seen. Wonderfully acted, intricate script, real depth to the characters and sparked a great disucssion afterwards with my girlfriend about relationships/the human condition etc.

Would love to hear other views and discussion of the story - why do things end up as they do for Jude Law's character? Why is he made out to be a "worse person" than the Clive Owen character?

Hope someone else has seen it!

[Gazeuse]

My one word review was...

Chickflick

and I managed to watch 18 minutes before I realised that I could do something much more useful with the following two hours of my life.

I am a miserable old sod when it comes to the fillums though.

[didgeripoo]

Oh dear. Doesn't the tone change drastically after the first 20 mins or so? I remember seeing the play and it being very dark...that was ages ago, so I'll have to see the film to refresh my memory.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

I'm put off seeing this because it has Julia Roberts and Jude Law in it. I imagine it will be very successful, if only because of the buzz about Natalie Portman playing a stripper for about two minutes. It will probably win a few oscars and Marber will be hailed 'an exciting new talent in screen entertainment' or something.

[BetaKarraTene]

Speaking of which, there's an interview with Patrick Marber in the film section of Teletext / Digital Teletext today (p312) including a (very) brief bit about his comedy collaborations.

[CK1]

How did the internet chat room discussion work on the stage?

Was there a voice over, perhaps a screen in front of the audience or did the actors just speak the lines?

It is very dark and I hope the big name stars in the film enocurage people to go and see it. If it was full of unknowns the masses would never go near it was would be a great shame because it challenges the way we think about relationships.

I think many will go along expecting a rom com chick flick and end up feeling quite uneasy. Which is good.

[butnut]

How did the internet chat room discussion work on the stage?

Was there a voice over, perhaps a screen in front of the audience or did the actors just speak the lines?

If I remember, there was a screen where the words appeared. I can't remember if the actors said it out loud. They might have done, but I'm not sure. I thought it was quite a novel trick at the time, and had never been in an internet chatroom. I enjoyed it at the theatre, so I should get to a cinema I suppose.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Out of interest, were the female leads American in the stage version, or is that just a sop to the American market?

[Cambrian Times]

I studied this at University. Trouble is I can't remember a fucking thing about it.

[butnut]

Out of interest, were the female leads American in the stage version, or is that just a sop to the American market?

Pretty sure the were all English, although maybe one of them was American. No, I think they were English. Memory's a bit hazy of it.

[Sam]

Just saw this tonight. Very, very impressive. The script and acting were amazing. All four actors were utterly convincing and equally brilliant.

Gaz, if you left after 18 minutes you're a fool. That's a stupid thing to do in any film, but especially in this one. It definitely got better as it went on, and as someone pointed out there is a shift in tone and it gets "darker". I thought I had the  the film pegged in the first 10-20 mins or so, but by the end I was gripped and left the cinema feeling almost shaken. It's great that this kind of film is in the cinemas. A lot of people will go and see it because of Roberts and Law and thus get to see a proper, non-Hollywood drama that is both poignant and realistically negative and pessimistic.

Despite being quite "dark" and serious (espeically in the second half) there were some very funny moments (the internet chat being the obvious one) and some of the rapid-fire exchanges (both in the funny bits and the serious bits) were very well pulled off.

I highly recommend this film. The most deftly written and superbly acted film I've seen in ages.

[Gazeuse]

Gaz, if you left after 18 minutes you're a fool.

I must admit, I wouldn't walk out of a cinema so quickly having paid for a tub of lightly salted popcorn and a medium diet coke...No, I tried to watch it at home* and quickly decided that it wasn't my thing because, 1) It had Julia Roberts in it and, 2) Films which 'spark a great disucssion afterwards with my girlfriend about relationships/the human condition etc.' aren't my sort of thing.

That might make me a shallow character in some people's eyes, but it certainly doesn't make me a fool.

*Legally

[Sam]

Gaz, if you left after 18 minutes you're a fool.

I must admit, I wouldn't walk out of a cinema so quickly having paid for a tub of lightly salted popcorn and a medium diet coke...No, I tried to watch it at home* and quickly decided that it wasn't my thing because, 1) It had Julia Roberts in it and, 2) Films which 'spark a great disucssion afterwards with my girlfriend about relationships/the human condition etc.' aren't my sort of thing.

That might make me a shallow character in some people's eyes, but it certainly doesn't make me a fool.

*Legally

Sorry, perhaps fool wasn't the best word to use. I wasn't trying to be insulting; I just felt you should have given it a chance because I thought it was great and it definitely got better and better as it went. I can understand that it wasn't your thing though, that's fair enough.

I must say, I was sceptical about Julia Roberts, believing her to be more of a "star" than an actor, but she was very impressive. Don't be put of by her cos you'll be missing a great performance in a great film.

[Rats]

Do you think marber has a special window for listening?
The critics are split almost 50/50 according to rottentomatoes. I saw the advert for it on the telly, they're selling it as just another empty chick flick aren't they? The mind boggles.

Some choice quotes

"Smugly offensive."

"I hope Closer doesn't win an Oscar, or I'll have to see 10 more like it next year."

" With crackling dialogue, Closer reaches out and grabs all but the most reluctant viewer. Some spectators will be bored, but more will be shaken and stirred."

"A better movie back when it was called Your Friends & Neighbors and directed by Neil LaBute."

"One of the most viciously insightful relationship films this side of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"

"A formerly startling string of episodes has become a prurient, static exercise in monochromatic tongue-lashing."

no idea what that last one means

[skibz]

Time for a lazy BBC link:

Clive Owen and Natalie Portman win best supporting actor/actress Golden Globes

It's really snowballing in terms of popularity, isn't it? To be honest, I'd never heard of the play until the film came into the news about a month or so ago, except maybe for a brief mention on Richard & Judy or something. Unfortunately, I seem to have some weird complex where as soon as something gets above a certain level of popularity, I get apprehensive about how good it actually is and begin to think that it's all just hype... especially when the term 'dark' is involved...

[falafel]

Fantastic film. The tone was just right. Acting great, pacing great, everything really very good. I'd shy away from using the word 'dark', because strictly speaking it isn't exactly 'dark' in the way it's played. It's certainly very blunt and agressive, and you lose count of the number of times somebody calls somebody else a cunt, but... no. Come on, it's Mike Nichols. What more do you need?

(please don't answer that question)

[Gazeuse]

I wasn't trying to be insulting.

Sorry Sam and no probs...I have a Marty McFly-type problem with words like fool and idiot.

Personally, I think that if after 18 minutes, you have no interest  or belief in the characters or what's going on then you've given it enough time. I suppose I was a bit sensitive to the amount of time I might waste waiting for something to happen after investing 47 minutes in the dreadfully dull Collateral the day before, so, OK then you lot...I'll give it another go.

Btw, I haven't got anything against Julia Roberts, it's just that she tends to be in the sort of film that I find very tedious (Like Meryl Streep).

[Mildly Diverting]

Did anyone else hear Mark Kermode's review on Friday on 5 Live? He absolutely slated it. I trust the Kermode, so unless it's revealed that he's Richard Herring's bestest mate, I won't bother.

[wasp_f15ting]

My review of this film:-

http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=5082&start=200

I thought it was possibly one of  the worst movies I have ever seen.  In real life, many intelligent and well poised people I know in real life, never react or use any of this lexical diarrhoea , it is pure none sense and utterly unrealistic. Unless any of you speak in such eloquence and articulation in such emotional torn states, how can you possibly credit this film for it's dialogue?

The acting was fair, but all of it is undone by very sloppy dialogue and annoying phrases, very unrealistic, and supremely annoying. The observer article said that such people do exist, and such scenarios are present, but we only deny them, fuck off, no they don't and no there aren't utter tosh.

Its annoying me that so many of my friends from university see this as a great piece of cinema, I see it as a supreme waste of time. Not even worthy of the title chick flick, just a mish-mash of fancy dialogue with titillating turn of phrases, accompanied by aesthetic imagery making it all consumable and all fuckable. All everything but substance..

[terminallyrelaxed]

Gaz is my film barometer - if he doesnt last 20 mins, I won't either....

[falafel]

Well, waspy, your opinion seems to have become much more vitriolic since that first review!

Anyway. On with my take on what you just said: Ach. I can't bear this obsession with naturalism\realism that so many people seem to have. Not meaning to seem patronising here, or do make a direct comparison with Shaakespeare, but - you think back in his day everyone spoke in blank verse?  Fuck off did they. The staginess and theatricality were part of what I liked about this film. The characters are characters - I managed to empathise with them, although I found them largely unlikable - but the dialogue is not just people talking; it's also a representation of the conflict between two opposing states of mind. I am under no illusions about its realism. But then I don't think that just because it's drama it has to be all choreographed umms and ahs and incomplete sentences and whatnot.

And the lack of substance? Where you sat fuming through an hour and a half of shit, I was watching an intelligent film about deception, delusion and the destructive power of the imagination.

Ah well, I don't want to get into an argument about a film.

[terminallyrelaxed]

Did anyone else hear Mark Kermode's review on Friday on 5 Live? He absolutely slated it. I trust the Kermode, so unless it's revealed that he's Richard Herring's bestest mate, I won't bother.

I have no idea who Mark Kermode is, but I refute his opinions on everything because he has a stupid surname like Kermode.

[Partridge's Love Child]

I haven't quite made my mind up about this yet.  I absolutely love the play, it's among my favourites in fact, but I felt that certain elements were lost by this screen version - though I'm at a lost to explain quite why.  There's no specific theatrical tricks or subtleties that are required to make this work a certain way, though ironically I felt that the initmacy of the piece was lost a little.  I also found it a little one-paced, and that pace was too slow.  I kept wanting it to crack on a bit - but that's maybe because I knew largely what was going to happen (though the details were sketchy - I saw the play five and half years ago, and I've not read the text for a good few years).

The accusuation that the characters were far too erudite in anger seemed fair to me too - the whole film came across very wordy and over-written, whereas my previous experience didn't feel that way.  I can only presume this is due to some discrepancy between the performances, which contrary to most reviews I've seen I thought were largely average.  I do rate Julia Roberts as an actor - she's great in stuff like Erin Brokovitch (which I enjoyed a great deal more than I ever expected to) and even Pretty Woman, which is an otherwise dire film, however I thought she missed the mark in this a bit, as did Portman and Law - the latter chucking in a dreadfully dull performance.  Clive Owen, however, who is someone I've never really taken much notice of previously, was terrific.  Owen actually played Law's role on stage (though not when I saw it) and I wonder if this gave him a better understanding of the piece than the others.

I don't really want to continually keep comparing the film to the play, as really I should see it on its own merits, but there's just two more points I want to bring up.  The first of these is that the film wasn't very funny.  Despite the visceral cruelty of the proceedings, I remember a lot of very funny moments too, but these seemed to be lost.  The online scene was the only moment of comedy in the film really - and yes, that was a humour highpoint on stage - but it was littered with laughs at other junctures.  The other point is that there was scene at the end of the play I always thought was a nice scene, which was sadly lost.  Dan meets Anna in the park where Alice chose her name.  They discuss Alice, who has been killed after being knocked down by a car in New York (though neither she nor Anna are American).  In this scene Dan reveals that despite demanding truth from Alice, and pushing her away because she wouldn't give it, he too had failed to give himself fully to her.

She told me she loved me because I cut my crusts off.  But it was only then.  It was only that day because the bread broke in my hands.

Speaking of truth, (and my apologies firstly for speaking some sort of reveiwers diatribe, and secondly for bringing up yet another play/film comparison when I said I wouldn't do any more), after seeing the stage version there was definitely a sense that I'd seen a piece that told a certain truth about how we treat those close to us, how our relationships are structured and how our sexuality holds a certain destructive power over us.  However, watching it in the cinema yesterday, it felt like what happened to the characters was of relevence to no one else than those four people.

All that said, it sounds like I didn't enjoy it at all, which I did.  However, I was somewhat disappointed.  I shall probably give it a second going when it's released on DVD.

[El Unicornio, mang]

I only just realised last night when I was watching the Golden Globes (for which this film was nominated tons of times) that Patrick Marber was the "Am I right?...YOU'RE NOT WRONG" bloke (among others) in KMKY. He was on the table closest to the stage, so they kept showing him moving his chair to let Clint Eastwood or whoever get through. In her acceptance speech for best supporting actress Natalie Portman named him simply as "Marber"

[Nearly Annually]

You are forgiven, Unicorn, by the pope himself, who incidentally is a catholic. ;-)

[The Duck Man]

Not wanting to sound like a chauvanistic male or anything but...does Portman get 'em out then?

[Dark Poet]

Completely devoid of any emotion and such a wooden performance from Jude Law. I'll assume this was intentional, the standard of the script was pitiful. Maybe I was expecting something akin to Before Sunset or The Graduate but it's not the cynicism I disliked - black comedy can be fantastic (Mulholland Drive or American Psycho for instance) - it's the whole style over substance motif and, well, I considered walking out but hoped it would improve. It didn't. This was the bitter to all of the awfully sweet romantic comedies that Hollywood churns out on a regular basis. And to make it worse they set in London (I live in London!)

The film I saw prior to this was Wong Kar-Wai's In The Mood For Love and they're fairly similar in some ways but that film actually filled the gaps with silence to perfection. Here, dialogue is forced and I suppose this is to make it reflect reality but reality is a film like Secrets & Lies, not a film that remains so unconvincing you actually leave feeling duped in some way.

6/10 (it had its moments)

[Gazeuse]

Not wanting to sound like a chauvanistic male or anything but...does Portman get 'em out then?

Is this the same terrible bint who was in Garden State???

[Dark Poet]

Not wanting to sound like a chauvanistic male or anything but...does Portman get 'em out then?

Is this the same terrible bint who was in Garden State???

Yes although I liked her in Garden State.  And Beautiful Girls too.

She gives a similar performance here but it just seems wrong.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

But does she get her breasts out?