Reviews

Closer: A

Mike Nichols delivers his best work yet. CLOSER is a well crafted dissertation on art's reflection of the human condition, particularly the dependence on romantic relationships. It delivers an intimate film that actually achieves depths rarely seen on screen. Kubrick's Eye's Wide Shut only scratched the surface of literal naked lies that represent sexual game-playing on screen. His work came off as a freshman treatise on relationships in a pervy, self-obsessed way. Nichols and screenwriter Patrick Marber deliver a full and rich study on the difficulties of love and sexual tension. Without ever showing a sex scene on screen they are able to portray the nasty nature of jealously, lust and obsession without actually exploiting these acts as Kubrick and countless others have done. The result is a pure _expression of the realization that we don't know anything when it comes to assessing truth in character.

Alice (Natalie Portman), a former stripper, is hit by a car in London as she forgets to look right. Dan (Jude Law) comes to her rescue and guides her to the hospital before guiding her into his life. Dan writes obituaries but soon finds a novel in himself thanks to Alice. While shooting the photo for his book he falls for the photographer Anna (Julie Roberts) who pulls back from him given that he's with Alice. For light-style revenge Dan sets up Larry (Clive Owen) in an Internet sex chat room to meet Anna thinking this will embarrass him and her. Cupid backfires thus throwing Larry and Anna into a relationship of their own. First impressions, like all art, can only show you broad strokes of character like stereotypes and lies. Alice is presented as a young girl in need of saving, literally. Anna is a strong, independent artist who seems smart in her career and choices. Dan is a struggling, sensitive writer in search of a muse, someone to inspire and rescue. Larry is a sex obsessed dermatologist and self-described caveman. By the end of the film, however, the audience will get a deeper and more profound view of all four characters and realize we just don't know them as well as we think.

Acknowledging that film can be art, the screenwriter is skilled with dialog that reflects the illusionary quality that is art. Every piece of conversation, every word has meaning, reflection and sometimes foreboding for what is to come and the gaps in story and exposition brilliantly leads the audience to fill in those elements with their own interpretations. It is those interpretations and broad-stroke impressions that the film is there to question. Alice, in the scene at Anna's photo exhibit, discusses this very concept to Larry when discussing her reaction to the photos and the show. The function is just a big lie, the glossy photos of people's faces don't' show the real person, the fancy people at the party only reflect that same quality. Everything is for surface show - one-dimensional illusions of character. Alice, Anna, Dan and Larry are those photos just in moving form but that makes all the difference. The movement and editing of the film allows us to jump through months and years of their relationships to unpeel parts of the illusion of character and stereotypes. We can explore wrong assumptions about characters and that should make us explore the real-world difficulties of knowing people, really knowing them and not just their image or attitude. Many will just see this film as a sad story of four wounded people making bad relationship choices. This is really sad because this film is truly a great wake-up call to humanity to embrace a new approach and attitude about art and people. Strength can be a weakness. Vulnerability can be empowering. Dependence can be comforting. Nothing can be valued or viewed without bias and prejudice. Great art, like this film, can sometimes achieve a new way to show us how wrong we can be when we let our bias prevent us from just experiencing life and being open to shifts in perception. So take a closer look, at this film and the life around you. You just might find happiness in walking away from the expected.

This sappy story of a woman falling for a card counter slips from bad to worse under the heavy handed writing and absurd plot shift generally only found in bad shows on Lifetime Television for romance junkies. The film starts out as a cheap copy of a Danielle Steel story about a mother unable to love again as she still mourns the loss of her husband at sea and a rebellious daughter who helps an English gambler get into her good graces, even if he lies to win her affections. Beyond the bad dialog and implausible idea that she'd fall for such a cheat, the film further degrades into an unwatchable mess.

SPOILERS

In the last moments of the film it resorts to adding action sequences to liven the tension. Not even a motorcycle chase and a thug beating can save this tragic loss of film stock. But it doesn't end there. The writers have seen too many soap operas so they throw in a coma-in-the-hospital scene and dialog along the lines of, "If there;s anything he'll wake up for it's you." The director even had the never to use a subtitle screen to flash "One month later" as if time had any significance to this romance. Yikes. The sacchrin in this film almost had me bolt from the theatre but to ba fair to the Harlequin Novel crowd, some women were dabbing their eyes. I can't recommend this film to anyone. Telenovellas are more fun. At least they don't take themselves so seriously.