The Spanish Prisoner

Well, if they learned one thing from making this film, I hope it's that Mamet should never sit in a director's chair again. I'm not prejudiced against Mamet. I like some of his films, particularly Glengarry Glen Ross, which is actually one of my favorites. But The Spanish Prisoner plays and sounds like a high school production. Literally.

I cannot for the life of me understand how this film can be called intelligent. Yes, it does not rely on violence, sex, swearing, drugs, alcohol, traffic violations, or even jaywalking to at least make it interesting. So call it a moral film, whatever that means. Oh, yes, it has a "plot." I assume that is why it's called intelligent.

I sat through this "plot" not knowing a thing about the film and I could see and hear the twists coming like I was tied to a post watching a host of bison pounding impending death into my ears. Plus it had more holes in it than a room full of acupuncture patients.

To begin, the editing was AWFUL, particularly the initial 30 minutes. Typically, when two characters walk into a room, it really does look like they were engrossed in conversation before walking in front of the camera. But in TSP, it looks like Mamet had just given the go ahead to roll tape. It played like it was made up of strips of paper cut up with scissors and then glued together. There might as well have been a speedbump noise every time there was a scene change.

And the dialogue?! What is even more discouraging than the abysmal quality of most films coming out now is when we're sold a piece of goods and people are convinced that it's intelligent. At least with the first problem, we're merely disgruntled. With the second, we're delusional. I find that depressing. So this film depressed me for that reason.

How contrived TSP is is metaphorically represented by the prime element of its plot structure: "The System." OK? I don't mind vague points. But this is just lazy. Why couldn't he just have made it top-secret information which could be used for insider trading? Or information about a revolutionary new product? The plot of Episode I: The Phantom Menace? Mamet may be acclaimed as a "genius," but he has to do more than throw out a script with a twist to have me sacrificing my first-born to his word processor.

I will grant you that art is not life. That said, it should not be more artificial than artifice requires. If Mamet hopes to continue holding an audience made up of more than sophomoric dilettantes, he should take some advice from another author. The "overdone or come tardy off," though it might impress some, "cannot but make the judicious grieve." Reform it altogether, David.

Covid days, and this is as comforting as movies get. I'm ready to declare this Mamet's best picture. I love everything here, from the weirdly old-timey spin on Mamet's hyper-stylized dialogue ("Dog my cats, indeed.") to how straight-and-narrow, square-jawed Campbell Scott is-characters here often refer to him as a boy scout-and the way this unfolds into a larger and larger plot that envelops everything. Mamet is having fun here with the plot mechanics that are just as preciously constructed as a Wes Anderson set. And the performances: Scott is compelling as Hitchcockian leading man, but it's the supporting cast that really makes this work. Steve Martin plays serious with charm, and then good grief is Rebecca Pidgeon operating on another level here-it's incredible, oddly-pitched sometimes and I can't be the only one who finds her alluring, right? An all-timer, innit?

Basically a story about the theft of a "process", which we may here define as a "MacGuffin", around which an elaborate industrial con game is organized.

In any game (an activity with rules, more than one participant, and a recognizable outcome) there are only three elements: (1) physical skill (you outdrive the cars pursuing you), (2) chance (you jump off the roof and an awning breaks your fall), and/or (3) strategy (you outwit your opponent). Unlike most action movies, Mamet's stories are almost entirely about strategy.

That might make it sound like rather less than it is. Mamet seems to love puzzles -- and puzzles within puzzles -- and the lengths people will go to manipulate one another and, man, is this a prize-winning example of his obsession. As in "House of Game" we have a big con that goes a little astray and winds up not only with the theft of a priceless invention but murder as well.

I realize "Glengarry Glenross" is probably Mamet's most highly esteemed work but I think "House of Games" and "The Spanish Prisoner" are more engrossing because more things HAPPEN. Mamet's dialog always involves a lot of byplay, repetition, non sequiturs, and general ellipsis, but the elegant stylization isn't worth much if it doesn't go anywhere. Here the plot moves from the Caribbean to New York to Boston and with each step the conundrum becomes more difficult to figure out.

Of course the plot is an implausible one because it depends on the heavies being able to predict precisely the moves of the mark, down to small basically unforeseeable details, such as his snooping in a secretary's desk and stealing a souvenir FBI card out of her scrapbook. But it hardly matters because we're swept along so fluidly in the mystery that we don't really question these events. The viewer, by the way, is kept as much in the dark as Scott Campbell, the protagonist.

The performances are all quite apt. Scott Campbell might be a terrific inventor but he's kind of a dim bulb in other respects. He's the kind of highly conventional Schlub that wouldn't DREAM that anyone, let alone an entire organization, would lie with comfort and such powerful effect. You have to wonder what his voting record looks like.

Rebecca Pigeon is, I think, an actress who never got the kind of attention she deserves. She's beautiful in an unconventional, petite, brachycephalic, angular way and her locutions and expressions always seem to suggest she may know more about what's going on inside your head than you do yourself. She delivers Mamet's stylized speeches efficiently but in other films has demonstrated considerable range. "You never know who a person really is," she says. Something else. She may be treacherous, and he may be wary of an office romance, but they seem genuinely attracted to one another. Near the end, when Scott finally kisses her, she draws back and says, "Crikees!", as if amazed and tickled. This is a set up for a final scene when she is hustled into the police van. She's supposed to break away from the cops holding her, run to Scott, throw her arms around him, kiss him fiercely, and confess that her feelings had changed to true love. But no! Thank heaven she has no remorse at all and leaves him with a wisecrack and a sardonic smile. Mamet is nobody's fool.

I ought to mention the score. It's mysterious and melancholic. The main theme is built around a handful of descending notes and the orchestration is simple but a little odd -- bass, piano, quiet woodwinds, and chimes. It is so weird and catchy that it could just about stand on its own.

Repeat viewings don't spoil the polish, even though the viewer knows the solution to the mystery. It's an original commercial product and it's enjoyable.

Joseph Ross is a researcher for a major corporation. He is in the Caribbean for a business trip to discuss his invention with the heads of the firm - a formula that stands to make the company very, very rich. While on the trip he meets the charismatic Jimmy Dell who he does a favour for and gradually befriends. As Joe starts to realise that his employers are trying to squeeze him out for his just deserves, Jimmy starts to offer him understanding and legal help to secure his end.

I first discovered this film on late night sky about 5 years ago now and was very taken by it. Later I got to see it again when I had a free weekend of FilmFour (this weekend in fact!) and I was happy to see it again. The film is a con, from start to finish it is what the tagline claims - never what it seems. The whole audience know this and therefore are ready for twists and turns and it is to the film's credit that the twists are still gripping and enjoyable even if we expect it. The film has a very slow pace and is quite unshowy all the way.

In one regard this is to it's detriment but it does create a film that is unassuming and all the more surprising for it. However the lack of fire works also meant that it never got the audience it deserved. I believe that, if it had gone more dramatic and tense that it would have played better in multiplexes and drawn in less patient audiences.

In a rare (at the time) serious role, Martin is actually very good. He may not have a great character but he does a really good job with the two sides of his performance - even if the darker side is more revealed through Joe's fate than it is through his performance. Scott is good but is forced to play a rather bland simple man - meaning that his performance was rather bland at times. The support cast is good and features several Mamet regulars including the charismatic and distinctive Ricky Jay. Talking of Mamet, he is great as writer and director and this is yet another film that justifies his reputation in my mind.

Overall this is a great film that will engage you and entertain you with it's twisty and enjoyable plot. It may lack the fireworks or heavy slick style of other films of the genre but it is all the better for it. Criminally under seen and deserves to be discovered.

What is so clever about this movie?

First: The dialogue is so wonderfully quirky and packed full of nuances. It was a delight to wait for the next round of words in each scene. The character played by Rebecca Pidgeon offered the best delivery of all the actors. Her vocal cadences were sheer fun to experience.

Second: It perfectly paced right down to the wonderfully offbeat and unexpected ending. It is NOT a slow moving film. Even if the drama unfolds methodically:

**WHAT is wrong with audiences today? WHY must every movie go faster than the Can-Can scene in "Moulin Rouge"? I get ill when I read yet another review which reveals the impatience and lack of concentration skills of the viewer. You want slow pace? Try Theo Angelopoulos!

Third: The cast is perfect for every role. Campbell Scott, Steve Martin, Rebecca Pidgeon, Felicity Huffman, Ben Gazzara and Ricky Jay. Each of them bring a special character to each performance.

Fourth: Movies like this, that don't feed you every morsel of the plot expectation in the first 15 minutes are a welcome breath of fresh air every time they are released.

Congratulations on a most memorable movie to Mamet and company.