Tape

Tape is a really smart movie. It debats the ideas of principles and perceptions as your own perception is constantly changed as the story (or should I say dialogue) unfolds. This movie is filled with layers just like it's characters (Ethan Hawk is incredibly funny b-t-w)and the ending adds a superb twist. Don't worry about the somewhat overly artsy camera angles in the beginning, you get used to it (and even start to enjoy it).

"Tape" is not the best film of the year (in fact, it's not even director Richard Linklater's best film of the year), but it's a strong and intriguing movie experience all the same. Just three characters, one hotel room and a whole boiling pot of backstory. One could almost imagine Linklater, Hawke, Leonard (hey, isn't that Ethan Hawke's roommate 10 years ago in Dead Poet's Society?), and Thurman hanging out with a cool stage play and a DV camera and shooting the whole thing in one night. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing discardable or amateur about this film. But watch how the play, a simple story of old friends confronting old wounds, is transformed by the camera. The story is told in real time in a cramped room, but Linklater's over-cutting almost seems to extend time and space, creating a fully-realized world outside the hotel room walls without ever taking the camera outside. The performances are dead-on and suspense builds right under your nose. Rich and engaging.

This movie comes from a seasoned director who, in the same year, nonetheless, shot another movie which i would consider the best film of 2001. This one, also shot on digital cameras takes place in a dingy hotel room and contains a cast of, count 'em, 1,2, THREE people, who are never seen outside of the context of the dingy motel room. So, don't expect for the scene to change. This film, based on a play, strives on realism, hence no orchestral score, no unnecessary settings or extra characters, just three fantastic actors dealing with issues. One (Hawke) is a volunteer firefighter/ drug dealer who likes to, ahem, get excessively high off his own supply. Another is his high school buddy,a budding young director whose film is being screen in the Lansing, Michigan Film festival, whose apparent maturity and superiority over his drug-binging pal and confidente is deceptive. The final character, who arrives 2/3 of the way through the movie is a former high school crush/ associate district attorney with significantly surrogate emotional ties to both of the men.

The riveting conversations that evolve from somewhat sneeringly nostalgic to downright inhospitable fluidly move the film more actively than any number of action-packed popcorn flicks out there. In fact, you'll have no trouble getting over the fact that you're just watching 3 people talking in a room for 2 hours (I'll admit that that was a little intimidating at first). The film successfully lures us in with that inherent voyeurism that brought those first moviegoers into the transformed vaudeville theaters. As a passive observer, we become immersed in exactly that which should be none of our business, just like Hawke's character pulls himself into a situation that is none of his business. By the end, no clear resolution is reached and as compelling and intriguing as it all was, we feel guilty for looking through the peephole.

This film took me two days to decide whether I liked it or not. When the final credits rolled, rather creatively at that, I couldn't figure out if this was pure brilliance on the part of Richard Linklater, or if it was nothing more than a group of friends trying to make an independent film. I could not decide. I even listened to the audio commentary of Ethan Hawke and Richard Linklater to see if I could capture their mood of the film to hopefully influence mine. While it was a very interesting audio commentary, it only provided more indecisiveness. After thinking about this for two days, I finally thought about it long enough and realized that if a film makes you think for two days after viewing, there has to be something spectacular about it, and there was. After two days I was able to put my finger on it. You had a very chilling story, a deeply disturbing confession, a powerhouse of acting by Robert Sean Leonard and Uma Thurman, and then there was Ethan Hawke. I put him aside because it was his acting, his portrayal of Vince that took away the inches of film that nearly made it into perfection. Let me explain.

This is a story, that on the surface seems small, is very large in structure. While its only setting is inside a motel room, the written word by Stephen Belber transforms this into a thrilling drama about past lives and future consequences. From the opening scene of Hawke throwing his beers into the motel door until the final dramatic conclusion where Vince is caught up in the web of his own lies, we never really know anything about him. Leonard talks briefly about what he is doing and why he is currently single, but we never really get to know Ethan's character. This is what muddled in my mind for those two days, I continually had to ask myself who Vince really was. Was he a friend trying to help Leonard with a guilty conscious, or was he on the side of Amy trying to give her the conclusion that she wanted. Who knows? I think I needed more structure with Ethan's Vince. We needed more from Linklater to help us understand this self-appointed villain, or even more from Ethan to reveal his ultimate purpose. Instead, what occurred was Ethan just jumping around being annoying with no purpose except what you could hear Linklater telling him. Here is what I could hear: "Ok, Ethan, your purpose in this scene is to ensure that Leonard doesn't leave, do whatever it takes". Ethan takes this direction and adds a couple of swear words and uses screaming to keep him in the room instead of countering with more plot. Does this make sense? I felt like I knew why Leonard and Thurman were there in that room, but WHY Ethan was bringing them together was never told. I know that perhaps it was left up to the viewer, but this story needed a hint. It needed to provide some reasoning for the situation. I felt Ethan held us back from learning that. Someone else in the role may have done better, but Ethan just felt lost and stagy.

As I said before, Leonard and Thurman really carried this film on their shoulders. I was impressed to see Leonard taking such heavy work, but his true acting ability really came forth. The same goes for Uma who successfully took the idea of "husband and wife" away while working with Ethan. I was concerned that it would be a factor in Tape, but luckily these two were able to keep their characters separate. The chemistry that Leonard and Thurman had on screen was shattering. I found myself holding my breath during their parts from both emotion and the tension that they created. Outside of Ethan, they did a great job.

The story was a very tight story. I loved being brought into the middle of this controversy and seeing that a world can be created and destroyed in a hotel room. I thought that concept was a hard one to tackle, but Stephen Belber (who also wrote the play) did a fantastic job of eliminating the corporate element and giving us the pure human drama that exists between these characters. Linklater likewise really pulls this film together well by keeping the tensions high and elaborate as our characters progress through the phases of this predicament. The only trouble I had with Linklater's direction deals with his swirling camera. Whenever two people were talking to each other we found ourselves swirling between the two instead of using one large shot or quick cuts. I thought this was annoying at times, and quite dizzying. It detracted from the words that the actors were speaking and from the impact of the story. That is my only critique of Linklater's direction, which was nearly flawless.

Overall, this was an impressive and very intense drama that will keep you on the edge of your seat due to its strong reality and human element. It took me a while for me to realize this, and will probably take some time for it to sink into your mind, but that is the nature of this film. It is created to leave this lasting impression on your mind and to haunt your mind during your next visit with friends. I think Linklater did an excellent job with the material that he was handed, proving that his work could be compared to early Cameron Crowe material. Leonard and Thurman explode onto the scene, while Hawke leaves a bit more to be desired. I do believe that Linklater should have considered another actor for his role. Either way, this was a great film that took away the classic Hollywood backdrop and gave us nothing but 100% pure acting.

Grade: **** out of *****

Despite the fact that this film looks like it has been shot with a 500 dollar budget it is very worth while. Of course Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke are somewhat famous actors, but they are not necessarily famous for their great acting skills. Yet in this cheap production, that has no tricks whatsoever to distract you from bad performances both are able to stand tall, as is Rovert Sean Leonard. Sure the film takes a bit getting used to, especially in the beginning when the actors have almost nothing to work with, but in the end the actors are what carries the film and they do so in a grandiose fashion. Some part of the credit has to go to the great dialog as well though, since the words that are spoken are able to grab you by the throat and keep you interested in figuring out what truth lies behind the talk. Nothing Linklater did was too spectacular, so I am sure any director could have pulled this one, but since Linklater was the one I must give him credit (and the rest of the cast and crew) for making such a good film.

8 out of 10