|
In Which the Eccentric Flower Eats Crow
Good evening, and welcome to the third and final installment in what seems to be a High Fidelity- themed day at the old journal.
I saw it. I liked it. Mea culpa.
Now - that said - I liked it because Cusack's character was not a genuine, unredeemed asshole, like in Being John Malkovich - he was a nice guy who just had some problems figuring out and articulating what he wanted in life, and who among us has not suffered from that?
Besides, the film gave me several outs that kept me from squirming in my seat:
1. Whenever a scene threatened to become difficult to watch, whenever it became clear that Cusack's character was about to suffer some painful humiliation, the script invariably had him stop, address the camera, and explain why he was humiliated and give his version of how he screwed up. In High Fidelity this is considered a scene change. Nearly every transition is accomplished by Cusack delivering a brief monologue to the audience. When he stops talking, the action has silently shifted to somewhere else.
Normally I'd be suspicious of a movie where a character addresses the audience so often (Cusack talks almost non-stop throughout the movie), but in this case it saves the film. One of the very hardest things for me to watch in a film is a character struggling for The Right Things To Say To A Member Of The Opposite Sex. I hate it. I end up getting embarrassed on the character's behalf, hating watching him humiliate himself. I never had to watch Cusack humiliate himself - only hear about it afterward, which is much easier.
I will be the first to admit that this one-degree-of-withdrawal will cause a distancing effect that may put some people off the film. For me, it saved it.
And his monologues - which I'm told are often direct quotes of chunks of the book - are funny, wry and sarcastic and self-deprecating in the good way. (There's a bad way.) If that's what the book is like, no wonder so many people like it.
2. They give Cusack two workers who are much, much more poorly adjusted to reality than he is. They make him look normal. In fact, the only really squirmy moments in the film were watching the silent one, the one who seems to be so shy he has difficulty with the English language, try to form complete thoughts. I felt so bad for the poor guy.
Meanwhile, watching his large, abusive counterpart brought some of the funniest moments of the film. I didn't have a problem watching him at all, although I frequently wanted someone to strangle him. (Cusack, similarly pushed beyond tolerance, actually tries to - twice.)
In the end I can love this film because Cusack does get a grip and there's a reasonably happy ending. That's the other half of the rule - not only does the protagonist have to basically be a Good Guy, but he has to find redemption. If you can offer me both of these things, then I'll see the movie.
I'm glad I guessed wrong about this one. And you, you Ardent Readers, can take the credit. My last-minute ticket purchase was directly influenced by the immediate berating I got earlier today. Which is why I figured I'd better post this immediate feedback to tell you you were right.
Everything happens so fast in this medium ....
© Columbine
|
|
