February 22, 2005

Constantine comes soooo close.

It is what Daredevil aspired to be, but it isn't The Matrix that it aspires to being. It is somewhere in between, just far enough off center to send critics who take comfort in the failure of movies whose dark nihilism unnerves them so that they never even notice when that sad rage turns the corner in the third act (see: Fight Club) to their Underwoods with destructive, dismissive glee. And if Francis Lawrence was half the feature film director that David Fincher is, the battle would be worth taking up in earnest… a real Matrix-like opportunity (and by that I mean the experience as a critic watching the film, not any arrogant notion that my gig involves wearing a torn sweater and eating a red pill) to fight for important work oppressed by the status quo.

Francis Lawrence may, in fact, be where Fincher was on Alien 3… flexing his muscles, but still not strong enough to really get his full voice across. The difference here, in my opinion, is that Lawrence has the screenplay to do what he needs to do and his sinewistic failure is that he doesn't quite know how to photograph a great performance or support a soft performance with his camera the way great directors do.

Thing is, Lawrence makes some truly risky and brilliant casting choices here. He, and definitely Team Warner Bros (and of course, casting director Denise Chamian), deserve real props for the bravery and not falling back on more familiar, less interesting faces to fill some of the small slots. He can be a love/hate proposition, but if this were a "real" movie, awards wise, Peter Stomare would be Oscar-nomination-worthy for his turn here. He has a resume full of wild performances, but this is one of his best ever. Tilda Swinton is a perfect choice for Gabriel, though I think Lawrence brings her up a little short with how he handles her… his images are all beautiful, but hold little subtext. Pruitt Taylor Vince gets to play into the stereotype of his looks and then away from it, but again… the performance loses impact because of the lack of visual depth.

I know it is hard for people to get what I am writing there… by my own limitations. But as one reads a film, one can start to separate script from direction, performance from camera-work, etc. It is an imperfect science since, as a movie viewer, we don't have all the footage to look at - to see, for instance, an actor struggling and the director and editor improving it as much as they can… leaving the viewer blaming the director for what seems to be a successful performance badly put on film. But there is a consistent theme in viewing Constantine (not shocking for a first time director) of interesting, over-the-top stuff that actually stays inside the lines - really hard to do - but just not having the knock-out power. And that consistency ends up putting the problem at the director's doorstep.

The most overt show of this problem is in the leads… where the pressure to get known quantities for the film seems to have gotten to everyone. I've never read the Hellblazer books, so my perspective is based only on this movie, but while Keanu Reeves' performance has merit and could have been further supported by a director who had the sense of humor and fearlessness of the Wachowskis, he was not the perfect casting choice here. What does work is that he is not a visual cartoon. As with the Wachowskis, it is clear that Lawrence was going for regular-guy-who-has-the-physicality-to-step-up. But for me, Special K was still a little too pretty… a little too obvious a candidate. My first thought was Mickey Roarke… 20 years ago. Of course, he played this kind of thing in Angel Heart and will be the caricature he has made himself in Sin City in April (which we all hope is the movie that Constantine aspired to being). Then it hit me… Edward Norton would have been the guy for this. He's average looking, but he swings well from ambivalence to rage to agony. He has an assist from unearthly things when he fights, so he doesn't need to be Eastwood tough. (Young Eastwood in this role… oh my.. that would be a legendary movie.)

One can see what Reeves is acting throughout the film and I don't mean to disrespect him here… though it is easy to see why some critics would read his subtlety as sleepiness. He is playing an emotional range of A to B quite intentionally. That is the character. But Lawrence doesn't give him the support of the image that makes that work to camera as well as it should. Instead of reveling in that subtlety, we are left a little short. Again, not so short that I didn't like the movie, but short enough that I really wanted to turn up the directing volume about 10%. If you gave this material to Tony Scott (who knows how to frame a script and doesn't go off on the tangents that some "special" directors go off in), Constantine would have been a $200 million domestic movie.

I have long been a Rachel Weisz fan, but here she isn't quite right, though she also could have been better served by her director. She is somewhere in territory that used to be filled by Helena Bonham Carter… the dark beauty who seems ready to touch the weird. But, as with Bonham Carter, she has played the role so often that the only interesting thing left to do with it is self-parody… not what Constantine calls for. So, instead, we get exactly what they paid for. And it just isn't great. Selma Blair has kind of played this out too, but might have been a better choice. Keira Knightley was doing The Jacket, though she might be a little too young for this role. Sarah Polley, who seems to be more Francis Lawrence's taste anyway, could have been a home run in this role. She has the Egoyan-look, but knows how to keep it down. Or a complete newcomer might have worked beautifully, not hinting to the audience. But it doesn't seem that WB wanted that, going for a known girl-sidekick superstar... the only such breakthrough category for Ms. Weisz, who has a lot more range than that.

The performance where Lawrence most clearly misses, however, is Djimon Housou's. Djimon is heavily featured in the ad campaign, the studio knowing full well that "audiences of color" are key to the box office of any dark thriller. (Not meant to be a pun or a metaphor, but interesting in retrospect…. another column on another day…) But he is not in the movie very much and when he is, he is not used to his fullest powers. Djimon has a powerful presence, but he also has a powerful physicality. And even though his character here is most often a man of ideas, his rage is called on and when it is, his physicality is not used to its fullest extent. And by that I don't just mean that he doesn't take off his shirt and flex. Like Constantine, he has the assist of extra-human powers. But his character was once a witch doctor and the show is part of the power. But they don't take advantage of the physical show that Djimon can put on… and it's not bad… but it isn't alall it could be.

Keanu/Constantine's opening scene of the movie, an exorcism, is a microcosm of the whole film. It's got all the stuff you want from this movie… sarcasm, wit, violence, demons, scares, surprises, buddy elements, ethnic disconnect, religious disrespect, the holy comic book trinity of the fat guy-the young guy-and the powerful guy… everything. And it is good. It really works. But it misses by that much. And you can kind of tell that the director had his hands full getting what he got and just couldn't get the perspective to take it a step beyond.

I'll run one gag for you, since it doesn't really work… and because we saw a much better version of the gag this summer. Anyway, there is a cab waiting for Constantine downstairs, behind a building. At one point, Constantine yells for the cab to move from where it was, not explaining. We, as the audience, realize that it's because something is going to come flying out of the window, smashing to the ground. The cab moves… back to action… the thing comes flying… and smashes into the cab anyway.

Now there is a lot of excitement in the scene. But the "explanation" about why the cab is still hit, the image of the cab being hit, the reaction and the result are all lame… really lame. The cab getting hit is the topper to the punchline of Constantine's fight with a demon. But it falls flat. So the gag works, but the topper fails. A skilled, experienced feature director would know that the home run is the topper. That is what people would have left the theater talking about. To make it work, the cab kid (who we learn more abut later) needs to see the problem coming and needs to really try to avoid it. And fate needs to somehow make it happen in spite of his real efforts. And the audience needs to anticipate it for ourselves. So then, when the cab gets smashed, in spite of the cab kid seeing it coming… with the audience engaged, trying to figure out if it will happen… and finally, with some sort of comic beat besides the kid cleaning up (the traditional one would be the kid taking credit for getting smashed intentionally as support of the hero)… the audience gets the relief and joy of a big, story-driven laugh.

But that doesn't happen in Constantine. And it doesn't happen a lot.

There will a cult for this film and the DVD sales could force a sequel that the theatrical receipts will not. Here is my suggestion for WB… start selling the humor and the women. This is more than a fan boy movie. Put Stomare and Swinton in some spots, highlighting their weirdness and you will get much better second weekend results. As Saturday's 1% box office jump from Friday showed… you've already hit your core group. Spread your wings.

And if you do a sequel, hire one of the guys who has done this before. Who knows… by then, Francis Lawrence may have made another film or two and learned how to do character as well as he does visuals (for a commercial guy, he does over-the-top with some real skill and subtlety).

That'll be three Hail Marys and seven Our Fathers… God be with you…

E-ME: How close to good is close enough for you?

The Case for Sideways
The Case for The Aviator
The Case for Million Dollar Baby

Sundance Wrap-Up
Sundance Preview Part I
Sundance Preview Part 2