1 ) [Film Review] Suture (1993) 6.9/10
The debut feature of US filmmaker-duo Scott McGehee and David Siegel is a pristine-looking psychological forensics of an individual's confused identity, shot in widescreen black-and-white cinematography, SUTURE has its unmissable neo-noir panache awash but also undeniably undercut by its slight story-telling stratagem.
McGehee-Siegel’s conceit is surprising and madcap, the purportedlyidentical half-brothers Vincent Towers (a dour-looking Harris) and Clay Arling (Haysbert) arediametrically different in their appearances (the racial distinction strikes as a self-aware but caustic jape), which at once impels viewers to suspend our disbelief and blatantly dissociates its scenario from any pretension of realism, as if to declare in its opening: don’t trust what you've seen.
Truly, what we see is a rather simple identity-swapping scheme goes amiss, after murdering his minted father, Vincent plots to liquidate Clay, his doppelg?nger half-brother, whose existence is conveniently sealed from the outside, thus Clay would be the whipping boy passing off as Vincent, guilty and perished, then the real Vincent can return as Clay to claim his munificent inheritance. The plan is seamless a priori, but miraculously Clay survives the car comb and ends up with a disfigured visage and severe amnesia. Treated by Dr. Renee Descartes (Harris) to reconstruct his face, now believing he is Vincent, Clay’s memory has to take a longer divagation to recover his true identity under the psychoanalysis of Dr. Max Shinoda (Shimono), who is welded together with the image ofRorschach test and passes wisdom in shrink's parlance by rote, and it goes without saying, the real Vincent will not have Clay usurping his heirdom for too long, danger and myth (for instance, what is the ulterior motive of Vincent’s recently widowed mother Alice Jameson,played by an elegantly dressed, seemingly benignant Dina Merrill?) are hovering like dark cumuli, and the film's ending sternly keeps the lid on its barbed irony of Clay’s ultimate choice.
In lieu of salting the plot,McGehee-Siegel duo resolves to making the mark of their cinematic style with their puny budget ($900,000). Potentially intensified by the sagacious choice of monochrome, the film emanates a beguiling retro-experimental flair with its punctiliously arranged compositions, high contrasted lighting and shades (inside thepost-modern edifice equipped with bedsheet-covered furniture and unadorned walls functioning as Vincent's clinical abode)and jumpy montages.
Another boon to this glossy debut is Dennis Haysbert, a straight-up leading man material endowed with virility, sensibility and fine fettle, who totally has it in him to rival Denzel Washington’s prominent status in Hollywood only if we were living in a world of justice, and SUTURE, at any rate, is the bona-fides of the overlooked standing ofMcGehee-Siegel’s oeuvre.
referential points:McGehee-Siegel’s WHAT MAISIE KNEW (2012, 7.6/10), THE DEEP END (2001, 7.7/10); Georges Franju’s EYES WITHOUT A FACE (1960, 7.6/10).
2 ) A curious little film
This is a curious little film.
"Little", because that is the kind of movie it seems to aim to be. The plot is tightly wound like a David Mamet film; likewise the manifest restraints of the acting, deliberate and disciplined. Is it plausible? That question is not the point, since from the very beginning the film-maker has asked us to suspend disbelief, by way of having a black and a white actor, who share no physical resemblance at all, as identical twins whom neither their mother nor the plastic surgeon can tell apart (the surgeon actually comment on the black twin's Greco-Roman physiology). The contruct of events is highly stylized, in a quitessentially "American" way that is of the schools of Mamet, Lynch or Wim Wenders. But this detachment from plausibility is matched with painstaking attention to details, so that it feels like life in its smallest minutia: yes, just the way we experience our nightnmares, those encounters of familiarity AND strangeness. For instance, the nurse's precise and deliberate articulation, or the psychiatrist's freshening up his mouth before entering the patient's room, or the surgeon's digressions on target shooting., all adding up to a measured precision. Also as in nightmare, our observations seem omnipresent: we can see how a "character" enter our room from behind his back, and how ourselves get up from the couch to greet him. A well-constructed nightmare, indeed.
The strangely fitting soundtrack of folksy rock-and-roll contrasts ironically with the intelligent lines and tight acting (for instance, the black homor in the country singing: "love is a burning pain", when the hero is packed off in an ambulance, suffering 95% burn from an almost-fatal explosion). Or the atmospheric touches like the ominous jazz tempo leading up to the twins' re-union, or the wonderful, nightmarish noise of someone running a baton across iron rails. For me, thoroughly enjoyable.
When I call the film "curious", I am referring to its odd yet plaudible boldness in its intellectual wrappings. How often do you hear a movie character quoting Auden, "learn from your dreams what you lack", or Shalespeare's "fatherful remembrance", as the psychiatrist does? And the surgeon's digression on the origin of plastic surgery in 15th-century Italy. And the frequent use of Bel Canto arias in the soundtrack: what's the last time you see on screen a birthday gift given in the form of a live oratorio (Gluck?) in the hospital? All the characters, the doctor, the widow mother, and even the cops, are not afriad of speaking with a precision of vocabulary that is, well, shocking to hear in an American film. People casually toss off words like "tumultous" or "thwart his compulsion", and the words don't sound out of place, either. The film-makers are admirably indifferent to the American mass's knee-jerk anti-intellect sentiments, and obviously nonchalant to the worries of turning away the mainstream audience with their high-brow "excesses". I love them!
To round up this review, let me pay tribute to the dream references in this film, and fend off critics, with another quote (from Apopcrypha, Ecclesiasticus 34:2.):"Whoso regardeth dreams is like him that catcheth at a shadow, and followeth after the wind." Enjoy.
很好的獨(dú)立電影,為什么標(biāo)記的人這么少?
爆炸之后膚色都變了,這種設(shè)定太弱智了??撮_頭還以為是邪典。
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/8Xotz156rVCUXYh-oJZeqw
女醫(yī)師叫作瑞內(nèi)笛卡兒
我相信他倆是兄弟還不行嘛
超現(xiàn)實(shí)化的身體轉(zhuǎn)換故事變體,放在當(dāng)時(shí)大膽的多樣化選角。如果白人在故事里出現(xiàn)的更多或許可以提供更多敘事策略的多樣性。
攝影不錯(cuò),黑白畫質(zhì)干凈洗練,有沖擊力,故事就湊合了,邏輯什么的,基本不成立。
nice tempo
克雷這角色用黑人除了讓觀眾方便分辨外,我實(shí)在看不出其它意義。
從處女作開始就搞得神秘兮兮的導(dǎo)演,先鋒黑白色調(diào),只有一個(gè)活下去的懸念
高級(jí)一點(diǎn)的學(xué)生電影… Seconds、他人之顏、笛卡爾、拉岡?廢話太多。
需要解讀的電影,看這種學(xué)院性很強(qiáng)的電影,可能故事劇情反倒不是重要的了,而是導(dǎo)演處處精致的設(shè)計(jì),從臺(tái)詞到演員名字到服飾,無(wú)處不在??p合的不僅僅是臉,也是不同的人生。
電影課上沒有看太懂而且有點(diǎn)睡著了??
金蟬脫殼后的替換人生?配樂和畫面都很克制。
攝影技術(shù)很棒。
這個(gè)風(fēng)格化的影像很棒....
the town named NEEDLE impressed me
中盛D5
攝影好
詞匯量不足,特地查了下這個(gè)詞的直譯:“縫合用的線”。通篇看下來(lái),就是賈雨村的一句話嘛:假作真時(shí)真亦假!本來(lái)是只替罪羔羊,結(jié)果命硬堅(jiān)強(qiáng)回血,靠著周圍人異口同聲的持續(xù)輸入:你就是Vincent呀……eventually,Clay就變成了Vincent!唔,這只是編劇想讓我們相信的,哈哈哈,最終那個(gè)小日本催眠師被帶入Clay-Vincent的怪坑中,眾人皆醉你獨(dú)醒的時(shí)候,方才是一切塵埃落定之時(shí)啊??