Phil Spector

Great talent. The best. Actors, writer, director. Awful result. The worst. Acting, writing, directing.

Even the best creative talent, even when already a mature artist, can deliver bad stuff. Happens. Happened.

Young screen writers are told to avoid, and how to avoid, "exposition." This TV movie was all exposition.

The lighting leaves most scenes murky, but murky does not substitute for mystery. Mystery, and suspense, ain't none.

It opens with an on-screen statement that, in effect, this is a free fictional invention based on the trial of Phil Spector. But closes with an on-screen statement that seems to be an actual summary of the trial outcome which is not in the film. Not sure if that's also a fictional element or reality.

Phil Spector (2013)

*** (out of 4)

David Mamet wrote and directed this bio-pic taking a look at the relationship between record producer Phil Spector (Al Pacino) and his defense attorney Linda Kenney Baden (Helen Mirren). The film starts off with a rather strange "warning" stating that this isn't based on a true story but inspired by the events of the case. I think it's pretty clear that Mamet feels that Spector was innocent in the crime, which he of course is sitting in prison for now. I'm not certain what the point of the movie was but it certainly works in terms of entertainment thanks to two great performances as well as a screenplay full of wonderful dialogue. I think the strongest thing going here are the performances and the screenplay. It should go without saying but both Pacino and Mirren are absolutely flawless in their performance and especially Pacino. If you're familiar with Spector then you know what a weird little man he was and I was really surprised to see how well Pacino pulled off the role. This isn't really a 100% mimic of Spector but instead Pacino really gets inside this guy and you do feel that we're seeing a real character and not just an actor playing a weird man. I found Pacino to be incredibly believable and especially during the scenes where his character goes into some frantic moments due to no one believing him. Mirren, who has to play the role sick, is also extremely good and comes across very strong. Jeffrey Tambor is also a lot of fun in his supporting role. Mamet's screenplay is full of that wonderful dialogue that he's best known for and I thought it really helped bring the lead character to life and help you understand him a bit more. I think those who feel that Spector is guilty are going to be upset with how they show him here but I found it to be quite interesting. The actual events of the case aren't really told in great detail and the courtroom stuff isn't what the movie is about. With that said, I'm really not sure what they were trying to do with the picture other than say Spector was convicted not because he murdered someone but because he's weird.

Pacino delivers another epic performance absolutely nailing Phil Spector. Helen Mirren was great. David Mamet's writing and dialog are absolutely brilliant.

Now, I don't know about the accuracy of the piece, but it is so powerfully convincing, I could believe it to be the truth. Whether or not was irrelevant to me as the film states upfront that it is not intended to be interpreted as an absolute representation of fact. I mean, the media is more propaganda than anything else, why would one 'expect' gospel truth from a movie?

With the predominance of Shlock in today's film world, I found this to be highly entertaining, I was completely absorbed and thoroughly enjoyed the ride it took me on.

Nice TV movie about the trial of record producer Phil Spector.

Al Pacino as Spector, Helen Mirren as the lawyer who represents him.

Good writing/directing by David Mamet, good acting. Nothing amazing, but it's a good court drama that kept me interested throughout the movie.

As the remark in the beginning of the movie says, it's fictionalized, and I treated the movie like that - some of the situations were obviously fictionalized (such as the trial rehearsal and the entire lawyers office, which seems more like a police station). I don't know how accurate the details presented in the movie are, but if it's half right then it raises some serious questions about the case.

"This is a work of fiction. It's not 'based on a true story.' It is a drama inspired by actual persons in a trial, but it is neither an attempt to depict the actual persons, nor to comment upon on the trial or its outcome." Above is the disclaimer that precedes David Mamet's Phil Spector. If I didn't know what to think of a biopic on the extreme eccentric character Spector was and remains, I really didn't know what to think after seeing that. This is a film that is just as enigmatic as its title figure, and earns its first strength by not judging, objectifying, or even shortchanging him despite his conviction. To make a biopic that lacks a viewpoint on its subject is a difficult, and often rare thing to do, yet the closer I look, the more I feel that Mamet made this film solely off of the fact that Spector is a compelling and unique figure.

For those unaware, Phil Spector was a renowned record producer in the sixties and seventies, known for helping The Ronettes, John Lennon, and The Ramones achieve untold heights with their music. Spector, himself, achieved notoriety in the public eye for being a true force of energy and uncompromising in his pursuit for greatness with his artists. In 2003, a woman named Lana Clarkson was found dead in his mansion from a gunshot wound through her mouth. Spector was quoted that night saying, "I think I killed somebody," and has had a known history with threatening violence to his girlfriends. But Spector's defense team has fought day-in and day-out to prove that it would be impossible for him to have committed the murder, due to the lack of evidence on crucial pieces (IE: lack of blood on his jacket).

Mamet decides to set his sights on the events preceding the first trial and the events of it, with Al Pacino assuming the role of Spector and Helen Mirren embodying Linda Kenney Baden, his attorney. The first act of the film focuses on the interworkings of Spector's defense team, where we see Baden and Bruce Cutler (Jeffrey Tambor) try to enact a plan for going about Spector's impending trial. Only until about twenty-minutes in do we see Spector, who is portrayed as a ruthless, foul-mouthed, arrogant, frustrated time-bomb on the verge of an implosion due to media scrutiny and constant false allegations. The film's most powerhouse scene comes when we first meet Spector, and him and Baden have a long, fifteen minute monologue together in Spector's luxurious mansion. During the course of it, the dialog is fast-paced, always engaging, and buoyed greatly by two terrific performers.

Pacino and Mirren unsurprisingly carry the film to heights it may not have seen had lesser performers been placed in their roles. Think of the drudgery that would've taken place had those two cinematic greats been swapped for second/third-rate performers in their first moderately big film. I'm already a tad shocked that Phil Spector has been sidelined to primetime programming on HBO, when it clearly has the names to make it to the theaters (besides Pacino, Mirren, and Mamet, director Barry Levinson is credited as producer). But I suppose the real question is, would this film have made it out of the theaters with its budget and then some? Is this a story that could be universally appealing? My answer is no, because Phil Spector is not a perfect film and is story could be viewed as mundane with the abundance of other courtroom dramas. The trouble the film runs into the most is its length; it feels like Mamet was given a specific runtime before he even started shooting the film and couldn't make it any longer or shorter than ninety-five minutes. For this reason, some scenes (take the courtroom ones) feel short and undercooked, and the ending wraps everything up untidily after the first trial, which was declared a mistrial. With the wealth of information on only Spector's case, but the possibilities that could've resulted because of Spector's true enigma and personality as a whole, a whole hour could've been attached on to the ending. It seems silly to hire big names like Pacino, Mirren, Tambor, and Mamet for an ambitious project, but only utilize them for ninety-five minutes entirely.

Even though the picture remains unbiased, it is a relatively unsurprising fact that both sides of the Spector case have been able to get fired up about some element in the film. Clarkson's family feels that she was portrayed in an overly dramatic, unstable manner, while Spector defenders say that the "time-bomb" personality Pacino generates on screen isn't accurate at all. The way I see it, you can judge Mamet on the way he portrays the characters here, but you can't say he takes sides here. Both sides seem to have truths to them, and neither of them are given cold hard facts.

Mamet conducts the picture fluently and interestingly, even offering something of a commentary on the current state of our legal system and how we may have a problem at judging personality over person or something along those lines. Pacino's embodiment of Spector is wholly memorable, Mirren provides the picture with true elegance, and the supporting performances are forbidden to tread the line of unimportance. It's just a shame the scope wasn't broader, and the story more inclusive.

NOTE: Phil Spector will be playing on HBO for the remainder of March and April.

Starring: Al Pacino, Helen Mirren, Jeffrey Tambor, and Matt Molloy. Directed by: David Mamet.