|
|
|
Twilight
*1/2
Cinema
Releases - May 8,
1998
Rated on a 4-star
scale. USA. Directed by Robert Benton. Written by Robert Benton and Richard
Russo. Starring Paul Newman, Susan Sarandon, Gene Hackman, Stockard Channing,
Reese Witherspoon, Giancarlo Esposito, James Garner, Liev
Schreiber.
Robert Benton's "Twilight" is a
frustratingly muddled film, which is strange, with its conventional plot,
especially when we consider that Benton made "Kramer vs. Kramer". That terrific
film, which won the Best Picture Oscar for 1979, managed to somehow make
us feel sympathy for both a mother who abandoned her child and the husband
who she left him with and then dared to demand him back from. I did not expect
a human drama like that from "Twilight", billed as a sizzling thriller, but
I hoped that it would at least be convincing enough to be entertaining. It
isn't, and that's a real pity, because it could have made a wonderful film
noir.
The plot is not hard to follow. Paul Newman plays
Harry Ross, a retired ex-cop, who, like all ex-cops in the movies, has also
been through private detective work and alcoholism. Right now Harry is living
with Jack Ames (Gene Hackman), who is dying of cancer, and his seductive
wife Catherine (Susan Sarandon). Jack and Catherine are both former movie
stars who were also, once upon a time, involved in some dodgy, dangerous
dealings, of which they are trying to sever all connections to, so that Jack
can spend his remaining time in peace. Harry, as a favour, agrees to help
in this task, and this leads to some painful secrets from the past being
uncovered.
What lets "Twilight" down, and makes it so messy,
is that it feels uncomfortable or uncertain no matter what position it takes.
It tries to be funny and thrilling, but, in the end, doesn't achieve either
ambition very successfully. It feels somewhat like the abysmal film adaptations
of Mickey Spillane's writing, which are so ludicrous that they have to be
comedies, but don't quite seem to get the joke. "Twilight" gets the joke
sometimes, but not always, and a lot of its drama is completely risible,
including a voice-over that's even more ludicrous than the one in "The Naked
Gun". The music score also seems Spillane-esque, thinking it's exciting,
intruiging and sleek, but really just irritating.
There are some nice lines at times, but they're
only one-liners, not followed up with anything worthwhile. I did laugh
a few times, but immediately afterward I felt embarrassed and let down --
quality in this film is immediately followed by drivel. The attempts at fencing
with wit all fall flat on their face, they don't feel natural, and I never
felt at home enough to get drawn in. The picture does not realise that humour
should not be a nice side-order, but should be a means of breaking the ice,
or even communicating the story, like it was in "Quiz Show".
Body language and line delivery seems all wrong,
and the costumes look like the actors' own clothes, so the whole film feels
like a rehearsal for something better. The modern, realistic setting does
not work, especially for a film whose screenplay seems at home as being a
40s film noir. Lines like "I knew it was you, sugar, your perfume was still
in the air... it smells different on other women" would be delicious under
more appropriate direction. As it is, the misguided atmosphere inspired me
to give up caring about the plot and characters rather quickly, and simply
watch with a regretful eye over what could have been, if the film
were put into context, or maybe even written as a book. Ironic, that, seeing
as one of the screenwriters, Richard Russo, is best known as a
novelist.
A nice film editing job by former A.C.E. president
Carol Littleton lays everything down in clear sections, so we can see where
the film went wrong, rather than trying to confuse us and make us think that
we've just lost the plot. Littleton can't change the quality of "Twilight",
but at least she's managed to make it seem crisp, understandable, and thankfully
short.
The film is also terrifically lit, courtesy of
Piotr Sobocinski, who has managed to sneak in needed noir elements through
his mysterious cinematography, in spite of his director's mishandling of
production design, make-up and costumes.
The wonderful cast is wasted. Gene Hackman is
made to wallow in filth, wheeze and... well, little else. Paul Newman is
only allowed to stare at things in a very curious manner, apart from delivering
the aforementioned voice-over. James Garner and Giancarlo Esposito both have
little gems of supporting roles, but only sexy Susan Sarandon has been given
any worthwhile opportunities to perform amongst the leads, and is both
interesting and powerful as the washed-up starlet.
"Twilight" is simply a mess, all thanks to the
directing, since this film had both potential and resources. Funnily enough,
"Kramer vs. Kramer" was on television today, and watching it I was reminded
that Benton is a director who can make the simplest of dialogue absorbing
and shattering. In "Twilight", however, even gunplay through glass cannot
disturb the audience's trip to slumberland.
COPYRIGHT©
1998 Ian Waldron-Mantgani
1998 Reviews
(alphabetical)
1998 Reviews (by star
rating)
Archive of all cinema reviews
(alphabetical)
Review Archive
Index
UK
Critic main page
|
|
![[Image]](http://www.ukcritic.com/posbanr2.gif)