Sleuth (Kenneth Branagh, 2007)
-
John Cope
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
- Location: where the simulacrum is true
Just saw this again tonight and was equally if not more impressed by it then I was when I originally saw it a few months back. In a year of many vaulted up though often deserving great films a few true gems got away. This was one as was Neil Jordan's brilliant and superb The Brave One (about which more at another time). Of the two the neglect of the Jordan picture probably hurts more as it was, probably, a better picture and certainly more expansive. But the point of Sleuth is just the opposite: to slam the door shut on all of what it takes to be false illusions--hope, love and even certainty.
What's most remarkable about it and what serves to tip us off as to its real project is Pinter's extraordinary distillation of the original material. It seems as if of all aspects of this picture to get the shaft Pinter scored the most hits. But this is a real shame as it ignores his accomplishment by missing its intent. This was not just some quick cash in remake or crass update for the short attention span crowd. No, in fact, the genius of Pinter's script and the film in general is the way it makes use of these seeming compromises to current taste. The 2007 Sleuth purposefully recreates and reflects a persuasively convincing cultural and moral tonality. In that sense then the boiled down-ness and blunt tactlessness of much of it is meant to depict recognizable and commonplace attitudes.
In brief, and this does not give it enough credit, it's running time is short because Pinter/Branagh/somebody believes this to be a requirement to properly do justice to the no nonsense and impatient amoral characters it portrays. The language is also often aggressively crude in a way designed to stand out in sharp contrast to the elegance of Schaeffer's original script.
To what effect? Well, to further an aggressively made assessment of a kind of totalizing nihilism, one far beyond the borders even of something like There Will Be Blood, which could still stand up as an object lesson in what not to be like. Here negation is the whole goal and if one can at least respect such a case well made then Branagh's Sleuth is an amazing thing to behold. It's agenda is basically to burn away all consolations whether they be social or textual until we are left with a still point of absolutely nothing but acts of power, hatred and cruelty. The mocking indifference with which Caine and Law talk about the poignancy of dying in the arms of one's "beloved", for example, goes very far to establish that neither can conceive of what that word even means. But there is a possible hidden meaning after all; more on this in a minute.
Much of what drives the picture's central enterprise are variations on the theme of self-abasement or humiliation. This is also in the original film, of course, but Branagh's version hits the point harder and more relentlessly; it emerges as the central conceit of all life.
And this ushers in Sleuth's most daring provocation. The third act twist that is all Pinter/Branagh. Without going too much into spoiler territory here suffice it to be said that they drag whatever gay subtext may have been implicit in the original completely out of the closet and into the light. But in doing so they wind up (quite intentionally I would argue) associating this with humiliation and degradation as well. It all falls under the banner of that. And that is what's ultimately so bracing. Because this Sleuth takes no prisoners and condescends to no one, not even blessed academics who would like to study the "subtext" of the power dynamic in the Caine-Law relationship. Here it's in your face and what that does is to nullify the entire idea as having any real weight or worth. As I said before, it's all blasted away, surrendered to the pre-eminence of usury and psychic brutality as the only conceivable or applicable currency.
Beyond that, the performances abet Branagh's intentions as well. The dialogue is already smug and clipped and hyper-stylized in its self-awareness. What Caine and Law contribute are performances which seem to fully understand what is really at stake here because they make no attempt to lessen the affect of the language and, in fact, match it measure for measure. Their supremely self-conscious turns work to render even the drama itself into a pure perfunctory gesture, null and void of any point. And this is so because along the way we lose not just any reliable moral compass but any and all reliable orientation of meaning. In this way Branagh obliterates the value of every sustaining fiction.
But there is that possible hidden meaning after all. It exists in the sequence of the highest degradation/despair when Caine offers a relationship of a sort to Law and he is at his most vulnerable. What is most despairing about this is, of course, the lack of certainty and the realization that, by this point, the possibility for generosity between these two men is pretty much dead. Caine's real/feigned emotional desperation here is also the picture's painful highlight; an indicator of what is being mocked most. What is perhaps most disturbing is the fact that the vulnerability of the moment is potentially doubly mocked. First, Law's mincing performance acts as analogue to Dean Stockwell's in Blue Velvet as both are very specifically about the denigration of vulnerability (the sensualness here is laced with vitriol); but then, the idea of vulnerability is itself scorned if we can suspect that Caine's enactment is itself pure act, a ruse to lure Law to exactly the same ridicule and derision which he directs toward Caine. What we are left with then is the bleakest imaginable nihilist statement as all possibility is made impossible since the lack of any lasting certainty dissuades any meaningful investment or commitment.
But the hidden dimension persists and resides in the idea that, yes, in fact a "genuine" relationship between these two does make sense after all as they seem likely to be incapable of ever finding anyone else who could satisfy these depicted depths of mutual antagonism (similar to the Oscar-Mimi bond in Polanski's Bitter Moon). Whether validating the legitimacy of an eternally equivocal relationship based on dedication to the sole justification of pure power is enough to provide any constructive dimension is an open question.
What's most remarkable about it and what serves to tip us off as to its real project is Pinter's extraordinary distillation of the original material. It seems as if of all aspects of this picture to get the shaft Pinter scored the most hits. But this is a real shame as it ignores his accomplishment by missing its intent. This was not just some quick cash in remake or crass update for the short attention span crowd. No, in fact, the genius of Pinter's script and the film in general is the way it makes use of these seeming compromises to current taste. The 2007 Sleuth purposefully recreates and reflects a persuasively convincing cultural and moral tonality. In that sense then the boiled down-ness and blunt tactlessness of much of it is meant to depict recognizable and commonplace attitudes.
In brief, and this does not give it enough credit, it's running time is short because Pinter/Branagh/somebody believes this to be a requirement to properly do justice to the no nonsense and impatient amoral characters it portrays. The language is also often aggressively crude in a way designed to stand out in sharp contrast to the elegance of Schaeffer's original script.
To what effect? Well, to further an aggressively made assessment of a kind of totalizing nihilism, one far beyond the borders even of something like There Will Be Blood, which could still stand up as an object lesson in what not to be like. Here negation is the whole goal and if one can at least respect such a case well made then Branagh's Sleuth is an amazing thing to behold. It's agenda is basically to burn away all consolations whether they be social or textual until we are left with a still point of absolutely nothing but acts of power, hatred and cruelty. The mocking indifference with which Caine and Law talk about the poignancy of dying in the arms of one's "beloved", for example, goes very far to establish that neither can conceive of what that word even means. But there is a possible hidden meaning after all; more on this in a minute.
Much of what drives the picture's central enterprise are variations on the theme of self-abasement or humiliation. This is also in the original film, of course, but Branagh's version hits the point harder and more relentlessly; it emerges as the central conceit of all life.
And this ushers in Sleuth's most daring provocation. The third act twist that is all Pinter/Branagh. Without going too much into spoiler territory here suffice it to be said that they drag whatever gay subtext may have been implicit in the original completely out of the closet and into the light. But in doing so they wind up (quite intentionally I would argue) associating this with humiliation and degradation as well. It all falls under the banner of that. And that is what's ultimately so bracing. Because this Sleuth takes no prisoners and condescends to no one, not even blessed academics who would like to study the "subtext" of the power dynamic in the Caine-Law relationship. Here it's in your face and what that does is to nullify the entire idea as having any real weight or worth. As I said before, it's all blasted away, surrendered to the pre-eminence of usury and psychic brutality as the only conceivable or applicable currency.
Beyond that, the performances abet Branagh's intentions as well. The dialogue is already smug and clipped and hyper-stylized in its self-awareness. What Caine and Law contribute are performances which seem to fully understand what is really at stake here because they make no attempt to lessen the affect of the language and, in fact, match it measure for measure. Their supremely self-conscious turns work to render even the drama itself into a pure perfunctory gesture, null and void of any point. And this is so because along the way we lose not just any reliable moral compass but any and all reliable orientation of meaning. In this way Branagh obliterates the value of every sustaining fiction.
But there is that possible hidden meaning after all. It exists in the sequence of the highest degradation/despair when Caine offers a relationship of a sort to Law and he is at his most vulnerable. What is most despairing about this is, of course, the lack of certainty and the realization that, by this point, the possibility for generosity between these two men is pretty much dead. Caine's real/feigned emotional desperation here is also the picture's painful highlight; an indicator of what is being mocked most. What is perhaps most disturbing is the fact that the vulnerability of the moment is potentially doubly mocked. First, Law's mincing performance acts as analogue to Dean Stockwell's in Blue Velvet as both are very specifically about the denigration of vulnerability (the sensualness here is laced with vitriol); but then, the idea of vulnerability is itself scorned if we can suspect that Caine's enactment is itself pure act, a ruse to lure Law to exactly the same ridicule and derision which he directs toward Caine. What we are left with then is the bleakest imaginable nihilist statement as all possibility is made impossible since the lack of any lasting certainty dissuades any meaningful investment or commitment.
But the hidden dimension persists and resides in the idea that, yes, in fact a "genuine" relationship between these two does make sense after all as they seem likely to be incapable of ever finding anyone else who could satisfy these depicted depths of mutual antagonism (similar to the Oscar-Mimi bond in Polanski's Bitter Moon). Whether validating the legitimacy of an eternally equivocal relationship based on dedication to the sole justification of pure power is enough to provide any constructive dimension is an open question.
Last edited by John Cope on Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
David Ehrenstein
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:30 pm
- Contact:
I find your reading entirely too sentimental. Pinter is not about love, but power. The cleverness of the original Sleuth is very much Pinter-derived, and so the old boy gets his own back here. Being the wildly sophisticated man that he is same-sex relationships do not unhinge Pinter in the slightest. See his The Collection for an obvious point of comparison. (There was a terrific video-film made of it for TV a couple of decades back starring Alan Bates, Laurence Olivier, Malcolm McDowell and Helen Mirren.)
-
John Cope
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
- Location: where the simulacrum is true
While I will agree with you that there is certainly sentimentality at play I would argue that it belongs to Pinter and not me (not this time). It is, of course, quite possible to be a nihilist sentimentalist. FWIW, I don't see that as any great flaw; I see it as passionate devotion to a particular world vision and I can sympathize with the motivating drive if not the result.
As to the same-sex relationship not "unhinging" Pinter: I'm sure it doesn't. But that wasn't my point. You made my point for me actually when you said that he was all about power and not love. Yeah, I realize that, David, that's what my whole post was about. Unless you're saying that my reading attributes an undue emphasis to the loss of love as tragedy; if so, you may be right but then this is where my own passionately held convictions enter into the interpretive process.
Have not seen The Collection, however, but will seek it out per your recommendation. Maybe it will clarify some of these issues for me.
As to the same-sex relationship not "unhinging" Pinter: I'm sure it doesn't. But that wasn't my point. You made my point for me actually when you said that he was all about power and not love. Yeah, I realize that, David, that's what my whole post was about. Unless you're saying that my reading attributes an undue emphasis to the loss of love as tragedy; if so, you may be right but then this is where my own passionately held convictions enter into the interpretive process.
Have not seen The Collection, however, but will seek it out per your recommendation. Maybe it will clarify some of these issues for me.
-
David Ehrenstein
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:30 pm
- Contact:
-
John Cope
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
- Location: where the simulacrum is true
Okay, it's certainly possible that my reading is only my reading (though even if this is so I continue to hold that it is a valid one) but I'll argue that it goes beyond that.
Love is inherently sentimental, the application of power as utility is not. However, when that application is set in contrast to the possibility of love (which is what I believe Pinter/Branagh do) then it becomes sentimental because it becomes fetishized. Sleuth posits a world where such power is the default defining dynamic of all human being. But it goes further than some indifferent acknowledgment by mocking the ultimate significance of power positioning itself. As I said earlier, the entire dramatic architecture is pointed up as a hollow exercise right from the start (the demanded/expected concession to narrative is a pointless going-through-the-motions) and thus it becomes self-annihilating and about its own insignificance. In this way the original version, which took class distinctions very seriously and allowed the gay subtext to be considered as a genuinely important contributing element that determined relationship patterns, is a far more expansive and engaging work. The tag line of the '07 Sleuth is "Obey The Rules" but by the end any rule is an arbitrary one and the game itself has become a laughable and pathetic farce.
Having said all that I am curious as to whether you liked this new version, David. I assume you do?
Love is inherently sentimental, the application of power as utility is not. However, when that application is set in contrast to the possibility of love (which is what I believe Pinter/Branagh do) then it becomes sentimental because it becomes fetishized. Sleuth posits a world where such power is the default defining dynamic of all human being. But it goes further than some indifferent acknowledgment by mocking the ultimate significance of power positioning itself. As I said earlier, the entire dramatic architecture is pointed up as a hollow exercise right from the start (the demanded/expected concession to narrative is a pointless going-through-the-motions) and thus it becomes self-annihilating and about its own insignificance. In this way the original version, which took class distinctions very seriously and allowed the gay subtext to be considered as a genuinely important contributing element that determined relationship patterns, is a far more expansive and engaging work. The tag line of the '07 Sleuth is "Obey The Rules" but by the end any rule is an arbitrary one and the game itself has become a laughable and pathetic farce.
Having said all that I am curious as to whether you liked this new version, David. I assume you do?
-
David Ehrenstein
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:30 pm
- Contact:
-
filmnoir1
- Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:36 pm
Sleuth (2007)
At first glance one would question whether this very stage bound material could be made visually interesting. After all it could easily be performed in a black box theatre with two actors, some chairs, and dramtic lighting. However, what Branagh's direction and vision for the film brings to this classic story of male ego is the dangerous complexities involved in living in the 21st century when every experience seems to governed by artifice, lies, or a manipulated interpretation of events. (This is why there is the constant reliance on the closed-circuit television cameras, both inside the mansion and outside of the grounds.) Here, Branagh seems to be reminding his viewers that in this age of terror there is no escaping the willful gaze of someone else, who at any moment is passing jugement without any knowledge of the true events.
The film is also about the anxieties that men harbor deep within themselves about their place in the world, their effectiveness as lovers, their ability to create and destroy, and their ability to find respect and understanding in the modern world. Milo and Wyke represent the divergent forces of youth and tradition and this impacts the ways in which the two men react to their circumstances. Wyke is the old class based Englishman who believes that it is his right to cause those beneath him to suffer or better yet accept his will. Milo is the new Englishman, who is not part of the old Anglo-Saxon traditions nor is he tied to the notion of a class based society. For Milo life is merely a series of games, seductions, and pleasures, in fact there is no point where he seems to be geniune.
One last point about the film. As I was watching it play out, there are elements within that reminded me of Haneke and his visual analysis of violence. Perhaps what lies beneath the violence in this film is the repressed desires of the two main characters and more importantly Branagh's understanding that in this world where violence occurs almost as frequently as humans breathing, the only hope for humanity is to realize our own inadequecies.
The film is also about the anxieties that men harbor deep within themselves about their place in the world, their effectiveness as lovers, their ability to create and destroy, and their ability to find respect and understanding in the modern world. Milo and Wyke represent the divergent forces of youth and tradition and this impacts the ways in which the two men react to their circumstances. Wyke is the old class based Englishman who believes that it is his right to cause those beneath him to suffer or better yet accept his will. Milo is the new Englishman, who is not part of the old Anglo-Saxon traditions nor is he tied to the notion of a class based society. For Milo life is merely a series of games, seductions, and pleasures, in fact there is no point where he seems to be geniune.
One last point about the film. As I was watching it play out, there are elements within that reminded me of Haneke and his visual analysis of violence. Perhaps what lies beneath the violence in this film is the repressed desires of the two main characters and more importantly Branagh's understanding that in this world where violence occurs almost as frequently as humans breathing, the only hope for humanity is to realize our own inadequecies.
-
kaujot
- Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:28 pm
- Location: Austin
- Contact:
Re: Sleuth (Branagh, 2007)
Very surprised to see the vitriol critics heaped upon it. I thought it was VERY well-made, acted, and directed, and it seems everyone's complaint has to do with the last act development that wasn't present in the original. I don't know. I was somewhat taken aback by it on my first viewing, but watching it again, it felt VERY organic, and, really, just a slight ramping up of what was present in the play from the beginning.
-
domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: Sleuth (Kenneth Branagh, 2007)
What a disaster! Most of the blame goes to Branagh's direction, which is so insecure about the base fact that the material is a simple two-hander that he over-directs every second of this film. Weird angles, over-cut shot/reverse-shots, silly surveillance footage, you name it. And the set design looks like Catherine O'Hara's character from Beetlejuice had a hand in this monstrosity of dubious modernist excess! As for the actors, who should carry this, Caine does well in a dialed-down variation on the Olivier role, but while I've defended Jude Law in the past, he is awful here and completely wrong for the part. Interesting that the whole film was a product of his prompting, because he's the weakest link in a ladder made out of few steady rungs. And let's just not acknowledge the clumsy new (homo)sexual politics of the last act, shall we? No wonder this bombed commercially and critically-- what the fuck was everyone involved thinking?!