"Closer" --- a dissenting POV

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 9:50pm

No one will agree. But...

I enjoyed the play on B'way, particularly Natasha in the Roberts role, and Clive Owen (then in the Jude Law role). And I admired the film's edge and decidedly adult ambiance. But all that goes only so far. The arch dialogue seemed so stage bound, particularly the non-Americanized speeches which Portman and Roberts had to spew (Americans, women or men, do not say "did you FANCY her?" Ever. Couldn't Marber have rewritten those lines?) And the lack of characters -- real, flesh and blood folks with pasts--parents, hometowns, investments in careers, homes that looked like homes--kept me at arms length. These are urban ciphers, people defined exclusively by their romantic and sexual entanglements (and cigarette use issues). They had no needs, desires, points of view, or attitudes removed from the quandrangle. No one else pierced this foursome. They were self-absorbed and selves-absorbed. You might even call them shallow. (The Owen character, a Dermatologist, never even noticed the skin of a girl who strips!)

To my mind, the movie is not on par with CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, or VIRGINIA WOOLF, with which it is being compared solely because of Nichols. It is slick, "sophisticated" (urban rich folk boinking one another in elegant slick sets)and colder than cold. It has a brilliant sheen, but nothing much at the center. When the Portman character finally reaches terra firma again -- in her homeland -- it feels like Scarlett O'Hara rediscovering Tara, because we've been so deprived of the texture of real life. Julia Roberts didn't behave like any woman who'd find herself living and working in London (attired in unflattering GAP wear--why? She heads to the opera dressed as if for a trip through Zabars to find the right hummus.)

All four actors are chic, wholly invested in the shenanigans Marber devises for them to play out, and give unstintingly -- but who are these people? Who ARE these people? Really? I think paperdolls or puppets manipulated by a puppeteer(s), despite credible performances. All the talk about how they get off with each other, who "tastes" better and who's gentler or slower--who, in the real world of trying to hold onto someone--has a love life so de-constructed? In the end, I didn't buy any of it.

Updated On: 12/7/04 at 09:50 PM

[Delphine]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 11:15pm

Auggie, I completely agree. "Closer" is not close, but rather distant, and disturbingly cold and shallow for a film focusing on only four characters. What a disappointment coming from Nichols. Updated On: 12/7/04 at 11:15 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/8/04 at 10:28am

I'm sorry Auggie, but I must disagree.

I use the term 'fancy' is just the way you described!

And I'm American!!!

Of course, I'm also highly affected and rather silly, but that's neither here nor there.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 12/8/04 at 10:36am

I enjoyed it as a writing exercies: why will people trust various characters and not others when we never show them the behaviors in question and we know fairly early that they're all manipulative.

But, overall, I'm not sure the movie all held together beyond that idea.

(Haven't seen the play.)

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/8/04 at 12:10pm

RobbieJ, I always fancy your fancy as I attempt to tickle it. But if you ever make a pass at Jude Law, please, please resist the urge to tell him you fancy any part of him.

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/8/04 at 12:19pm

I wouldn't even dream of speaking if I happen to be in the same room as Mr. Law.

After all, a lady never speaks when her mouth is full.