Films like this generally are problematic. They are written as plays and kept as plays when carried over, so the filmmaker is limited to a preset notion of the space.
"Rope" was taken as a challenge in this regard, with a master visionary exploiting the confinement. It was, in effect, a learning experience for him without much reward for us, beyond what the play itself carried. Here in this film, we have something similar I believe. Polanski is a rare talent, a filmmaker that understands confinement — indeed his whole life is defined by the concept. He was approached to direct-for-hire and took the job, I believe, because he wanted a similar learning experience.
So what we have here is a screenplay that was frozen before the man started his film and which he has taken unaltered. Someone else selected the actors, making what I think were bad choices. On this, Polanski designed the eye, making what I see as a whole different movie on top of the play.
The play is about a woman who had been victimized by state torture. She believes she has encountered her torturer; the film is about the encounter and the extent to which you can trust her narrative or the accused. Her husband presides; he is literally a lawyer selected by the new president to sort out just these sorts of conflicting truths. The question is: will the accused confess? Well he does before the film is over, but was his confession true?
Neither one of these two gives us much reason to trust them as characters. They both are liars. What Polanski does is subtly more the stance of the camera so that we alternate between who is the narrator so far as the lines compared to who is the aligned watcher and whose narrative space is tentatively trusted. It is a remarkable exercise, of just the kind that he would devour.
I believe he used these skills in a similar weave of untrusted narrative in his next film, "Gate," which I think is an unappreciated masterpiece. But unless you happen to be tuned into this movie on a movie, this narrative about narrative, you will find this a pretty tame encounter.
Unless you happen to live in a country that sponsors torture.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
"Rope" was taken as a challenge in this regard, with a master visionary exploiting the confinement. It was, in effect, a learning experience for him without much reward for us, beyond what the play itself carried. Here in this film, we have something similar I believe. Polanski is a rare talent, a filmmaker that understands confinement — indeed his whole life is defined by the concept. He was approached to direct-for-hire and took the job, I believe, because he wanted a similar learning experience.
So what we have here is a screenplay that was frozen before the man started his film and which he has taken unaltered. Someone else selected the actors, making what I think were bad choices. On this, Polanski designed the eye, making what I see as a whole different movie on top of the play.
The play is about a woman who had been victimized by state torture. She believes she has encountered her torturer; the film is about the encounter and the extent to which you can trust her narrative or the accused. Her husband presides; he is literally a lawyer selected by the new president to sort out just these sorts of conflicting truths. The question is: will the accused confess? Well he does before the film is over, but was his confession true?
Neither one of these two gives us much reason to trust them as characters. They both are liars. What Polanski does is subtly more the stance of the camera so that we alternate between who is the narrator so far as the lines compared to who is the aligned watcher and whose narrative space is tentatively trusted. It is a remarkable exercise, of just the kind that he would devour.
I believe he used these skills in a similar weave of untrusted narrative in his next film, "Gate," which I think is an unappreciated masterpiece. But unless you happen to be tuned into this movie on a movie, this narrative about narrative, you will find this a pretty tame encounter.
Unless you happen to live in a country that sponsors torture.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.