1. The do. No, it's not a plot point. It is a semblance of traditional hair arrangements of European men and piled way too high. Granted there are other men in the film with similar dos, but not that high.
2. The grimace. It's over done. True, men (and women) in the Urals and other Eurpeanish places do tend to get grimacey-looking and wrinkled liked old hacks. It's part of their resignation to chance. However, they do not grimace. It's more like carrying a heavy weight. A slight grimace would have served here to make his face reflect that philosophy.
3. The chin. I understand the mannerism, seen in bullies and other forward men, to lead with the chin. Maybe I'm oversensitive. I got real tired of that dimple. It might have been me. I had a similar experience watching Demi Moore in "Ghost" as she raked her hands through her shockingly short hair.
4. Physical disparity. He is too tall to be a European man. Okay. He is a European man but he's too tall to be a Russian. Undoubtedly there are tall Russians (sounds like a drink doesn't it?), but he didn't look truly Russian except in some of the stagier shots. Also, he's too handsome to be a chopped up gangster although much was made of his broken upper lip.
What I did like were the stance and mannerisms. The accent was good although a bit thin at times -- some of which was explained by Nikolai being a plant. Best scenes for characterization were the corpse chopping scene and the one where he is told to shut down his operation and responds by pulling open his hospital robe and saying, "If you do we will be wasting this..." and shows his stars.
As in "Miss Potter," the American actors make much bigger gestures than a typical European would. There is something understated and ancient in the movements of a European that an American can not easily imitate. I was once identified as an American just from the way I stood in line for immigration in Cyprus. Americans just act different. The disparity got in the way.
Cronenberg almost said something to me. Like "A History of Violence" there was something beneath the surface that probably was obvious to the director. Something that came out beautifully in "The Fly." In this show it was a like a tease or a preview of coming attractions. He almost said something but pulled back at the last moment, or placed it somewhere beyond the closing curtain.
This was not a subtle movie. It was a movie with huge swatches of violence, a strong caricature which stuck out like a red light, and an ending that was patently resolved if not happy. I didn't feel the pathos that I did after "The Fly." Maybe it was the story.
I can't end without a comment on the naked fight scene. It was an interesting study in logistics and strategy. As a set piece, it did have a purpose in the plot and served that purpose well. Having studied art and drawn uncounted nudes of all types of physiques, I'm a little blase about nakedness. I forget that there are those who find that sort of thing sensational. It served that purpose perfectly as well.
Mr. Mortensen did offer an excellent performance, even if it was a bit heavy-handed and a bit too overly characterized for me. The story was intriguing and consistent. The other actors were well-cast and created excellent believable characters, especially Vincent Cassel who's ability to project the many ranges of insanity with such force and energy was amazing. Naomi was so subtle as to be almost invisible. The tableau of Nikolai and Anna standing in a filthy alley while gazing down at the baby (not the one where they look into each other's eyes, although that was a nice kiss and farewell) was too short. Very Joseph and Mary stuff. Oh yeah. The scene in which Nikolai is offered his stars is totally great. Many thanks to Armin Mueller-Stahl for playing such a nice huggy-bear crazy grandpapa.There's a man who knows how to carry his world weariness.
I hoped I would find an answer to the question of why Viggo Mortensen chooses to create characters that are the opposite of who he appears to be in his art and poetry. I didn't find one in this show. It's got to be really painful to do something that offends personal sensibilities. Maybe that's the point. Whatever it is, I'm disembarking from the Mortensen-Cronenberg Bus. I've had enough of violence. I don't need to get any more in the theater. Besides, I think film three is going to be only about Viggo and Naomi and the start of some international movie franchise. Canaukwood?
Viggo would make a great crazy street person a la Howard Hughes or the Rain Man. Wonder why he doesn't do something like that? You know, undercover deranged autistic person saves the world or reinvents morality. Or turns out to be a once-respected brilliant mathematician who holds the key to world peace? noblesse oblige ha ha
1 comment:
Here's the beginning of an answer on how he chooses his roles. Apparently it has to do with the quality of the story and the journey of the character he's asked to play.
Post a Comment