Guilty as Sin, Part II

After reading my pan of Sidney Lumet's new movie, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, along with the many, many raves about it, a friend wrote to say:

What's wrong with these fucking people? I feel like A.O. Scott & David Denby (and while I have my misgivings about each, they're not idiots) just bought the package, perhaps literally sight unseen: It's "serious," it's "drama," it has these supposedly classical origins, it's got a few pomo trappings but its feet are in honorable old Hollywood, the director is a "mensch" (give me a break with the patronizing Yiddishisms, Tony).

I was literally shocked to see the film after reading all the raves about it. I'm glad not to be alone, but it makes me profoundly depressed about the lack of discrimination. I'm wondering if these are the same people who go on and on at parties about how great Philip Roth is.

You were too nice to say this directly, but most of Lumet's films are completely leaden — and all of them in the last 25 years. The only times in Lumet's long career when his methods have produced something that wasn't completely boring have been when he was given an exceptional screenplay (notably by Chayefsky). Even with that, I'm not sure how Network would play after all these years. I watched Serpico at some point in the 90s and found it entertaining in the manner of a 2-hour Kojak episode. Dog Day Afternoon and The Verdict I definitely admire, although, again, I haven't seen them for a long time. I can pretty much guarantee that 12 Angry Men would seem unwatchable.

Once I realized how bad the movie was going to be, I found myself actually pining for Quentin Tarantino. If I begged God to turn this movie into Jackie Brown, would he oblige? Sidney Lumet has never IN HIS LIFE directed a scene as good as the one between De Niro and Sam Jackson in the LAX-vicinity bar in Jackie Brown.

What are your thoughts, dear readers?

Comments

[Filmbrain]

I think you were a bit too harsh on it. No, it's not high art, but for a genre pic it's pretty damn good.

It reminded me of a Jim Thompson novel -- one of those where absolutely everybody is horrible, and horrible to each other.

Downward spiral films often go wrong, and this one didn't. It was unrelenting throughout, and I admire its commitment to remaining bleak.

This isn't a family psychodrama, so I didn't have a problem with the flimsy backstory. But when you get right down to it, isn't sibling rivalry always a case of Dad/Mom loved you more?

One thing you did get right -- Hawke was SO doing Tom Cruise, acting with his shoulders and all.

[Joe Valdez]

I won't get a chance to see the movie until it's released on DVD, but I do think your friend got way too caffeinated on Sidney Lumet.

No, he hasn't directed a blockbuster or even a significant film in 25 years, but then again, there aren't many directors who were working in the 1960s who you can say that about.

I think Lumet should be admired for continuing to work, and for refusing to put himself out in front of his movies as a Great Director, taking all the credit when they won awards, or deflecting the blame when they bombed.

p.s. Network holds up today even better than it did in 1976