This outing poses an obvious question: who made the mistake in making the lead character a Tourette's-afflicted gumshoe? Was it Edward Norton the writer, or Norton the director, or Norton the actor? Amazingly enough, the auteur gets off the hook, as the condition comes from the source book, and was simply carried over into the movie. I suppose it would have been impossible not to do so, as the character's affliction is a signature mark of the work, but the device probably works better in print--where the reader has a certain amount of control over distraction--rather than on screen, where it becomes a one more layer of opacity in a complex story. Some of the story gets away from the viewer, which adds a demerit to an otherwise solid effort. So too with Norton's penchant (typical in an unproven director) to try to be a bit too gimmicky in the presentation; sometimes it works, other times keeping it simple would have served better. Those flaws are mostly outweighed by the overall skill, which is well employed in creating a solid, neo-noir environment that is one of the real joys of the film experience. It's hardly perfect, but this piece is perfectly watchable, and promise even better works to come.Saturday, August 1, 2020
Motherless Brooklyn
This outing poses an obvious question: who made the mistake in making the lead character a Tourette's-afflicted gumshoe? Was it Edward Norton the writer, or Norton the director, or Norton the actor? Amazingly enough, the auteur gets off the hook, as the condition comes from the source book, and was simply carried over into the movie. I suppose it would have been impossible not to do so, as the character's affliction is a signature mark of the work, but the device probably works better in print--where the reader has a certain amount of control over distraction--rather than on screen, where it becomes a one more layer of opacity in a complex story. Some of the story gets away from the viewer, which adds a demerit to an otherwise solid effort. So too with Norton's penchant (typical in an unproven director) to try to be a bit too gimmicky in the presentation; sometimes it works, other times keeping it simple would have served better. Those flaws are mostly outweighed by the overall skill, which is well employed in creating a solid, neo-noir environment that is one of the real joys of the film experience. It's hardly perfect, but this piece is perfectly watchable, and promise even better works to come.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment