Way of the Gun
I got around (finally) to watching Chris McQuarrie's "Way of the Gun", four years after its release. I have to say, I don't remember hearing much about it, and I had forgotten that this was C.M.'s follow-up to "Usual Suspects". I can see how this may have lost some people, as there are many complex characters who are interrelated, and the script does a good job of not telling the audience every detail. To me, it came off like a soap opera with ultra-violent resolutions to each story thread. Ryan Phillipe won me over with his performance, and Del Toro was as good as ever. I may have rented this sooner, but I remembered Taye Diggs was in it, and I think he could be one of the worst actors to make a living. Check out "Equilibrium" to understand where I'm coming from.
McQuarrie is the master of subtext, which really makes the viewer pay close attention to character gestures, editing, and purpose of the camera. What I mean to say is, the dialogue does not always have the answers you are looking for to complete the story. To me, he uses so much subtext, that you can get lost if you miss a moment where, for example, the camera holds on a particular character for an extra second, giving you time to see this character react to another. That reaction could hold the key to the character's motives, feelings, or intentions on a particular matter. Many writers who write for movies, probably take the easy way out, and just have the character respond in dialogue. His characters (at least in this one) seem to internalize a lot, leaving you to guess "Why did he/she just make that face when they heard the news? What is he/she hiding? What is his/her connection to the situation? What is their motive in the plot?" I was asking myself these questions throughout "Way of the Gun" so much in fact, that I was hoping that just one character would blab out the story like a villian from a 007 film, so my brain could take a rest and enjoy the gunplay for a moment.
It was entertaining as hell, and I would like to see it again one of these days, but I think I need a plain ol' "good-guys-wear-white-hats/bad-guys-wear-black-hats movie" to feel smart again.
Justin had fun writing this at 2:03 PM
McQuarrie is the master of subtext, which really makes the viewer pay close attention to character gestures, editing, and purpose of the camera. What I mean to say is, the dialogue does not always have the answers you are looking for to complete the story. To me, he uses so much subtext, that you can get lost if you miss a moment where, for example, the camera holds on a particular character for an extra second, giving you time to see this character react to another. That reaction could hold the key to the character's motives, feelings, or intentions on a particular matter. Many writers who write for movies, probably take the easy way out, and just have the character respond in dialogue. His characters (at least in this one) seem to internalize a lot, leaving you to guess "Why did he/she just make that face when they heard the news? What is he/she hiding? What is his/her connection to the situation? What is their motive in the plot?" I was asking myself these questions throughout "Way of the Gun" so much in fact, that I was hoping that just one character would blab out the story like a villian from a 007 film, so my brain could take a rest and enjoy the gunplay for a moment.
It was entertaining as hell, and I would like to see it again one of these days, but I think I need a plain ol' "good-guys-wear-white-hats/bad-guys-wear-black-hats movie" to feel smart again.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home