Closer, entre adultes consentants

I prefer when a movie is a movie. But when a movie is a very good play, we should be happy as well because there just aren't that many good things around.

This is a play, there's no mistaking. All the dynamics in it are seated in the words, all the motives in the four beings. There is no cinematic device used or necessary, except the revealing of the passport at the end, and I am sure that was handled differently in the stage version.

Mike Nichols makes a living out of taking constructions that work well on the stage and adding a few cinematic glosses so that the thing gives the impression it was born as a screen being. I find his tricks in this regard distracting, even a bit offensive because he hasn't adapted as the visual vocabulary has.

Never mind. Just eliminate the film components of its being and focus on the stage components and you still have something worthwhile, because here Nichols is still fresh.

You can read other folks to learn the story. It hardly matters. What matters to me is the clever, deep way the writer has constructed the thing. The visceral effect is from the panic and desperation of love. Nothing new there. What makes this effective, I think, are two things. Writerly things.

The first is that he hasn't just described the tippy balance of living in a romance. He hasn't just displayed the radical fuzziness and unpredictability of a world where that is all you know. He's made it the root of the story. This story has absolutely none of the logic to it that you expect when you see a love story. Everything seems real and natural after it has happened, but there's no way at all to predict what will happen next when you are in the thing. Its a great help in storytelling; you have to cling fast to what is happening. Its the best type of engagement, sucking you in by simply making you wonder, even worry about what is going to happen next. Its rare. Its good.

I'd like to point out how the four characters are constructed. A popular writing technique is to take one whole soul and break it into bits. Then the bits can get fleshed out imperfectly and interact so that the interaction has a being. In this case, start with a movie. What four pieces do you need? The writer (Dan), the photographer (Anna), the actor (Alice) and the director, the person concerned with the "skin" of the thing.

Its no accident, I think that it is impossible to settle on any one of these characters. You can go through this experience time and time again, each time tracing a different person's path, or the path of a relationship or even an urge.

This part is great too. Apart from Nichols' cinematic naivety, there's only one blot: Julia Roberts. She just doesn't understand what it means to be part of an assembly. She's not an actress in the real sense, the theatrical sense that Nichols knows how to sculpt. No wonder he wanted Cate Blanchett instead.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

I couldn't wait to see this movie. Now, I realize I should have waited to see this movie until it could be rented.

This is a very cold film about some very unpleasant people who don't seem to be able to make up their minds about much. I liked the way it was done, I loved the acting, and I loved the use of "Cosi Fan Tutte" throughout the film.

Yet it left me feeling empty. I never saw the play, but I imagine it was quite powerful. As a film, it had a deadly detachment.

Certainly when one looks at a film like Virginia Woolf, also based on a play, also directed by Mike Nichols, also about some unpleasant people, one wonders why Woolf came off so well and this one didn't (for me, anyway). I think it's because Virginia Woolf is an incredible love story - at the end, when George explains that they're childless, and Martha says "We couldn't" referring to having a baby, one realizes what's underneath all of the unpleasantness.

In "Closer," there's just no payoff. Four people change partners, hurt one another, are seemingly incapable of doing anything else, but no one tells us why. Only the Natalie Portman character shows some humanity. But some isn't enough.

Mike Nichols is a fabulous director, but the direction wasn't the problem here. It's the characterizations. I can't agree with some of the other posters that the film was fascinating. I didn't find it so. The theater was packed because of good reviews. I suppose the critics are hungry for something intelligent, and obviously the ticket-buying audience is, and who can blame them?

But don't tell me this is the best you can come up with. When everybody walks out of the theater complaining, as they did after the showing I attended, there's a problem.

What an amazing concept. A story that perfectly captures the emotions that we feel when involved in a love spat. The complete desire and need for another person, wanting to hold them close to you, while at the same point in time the mere vision of seeing that person and hearing their voice sends you into utter misery and you feel repulsed by them. Jude Law is masterful in his role, and he is matched equally by the performances of Clive Owen, Natalie Portman and Julia Roberts. A brilliant movie with many mixed emotions. As soon as you think, okay, this is where they live happily ever after, another twisting tale occurs. This is as real as it gets folks. Definitely one worth purchasing when it hits DVD, apart from that, watch it on big screen and you will be amazed at how you relate to this master piece.

While I thought the characters were interesting, I found it very difficult to watch, as my own marriage disintegrated in a fashion too familiar to these characters. The lies, the half-truths, the inability to distinguish truth from lie after being told so many lies. I could completely relate to the characters in this movie.

Though I could laugh with it, it was nevertheless painful to watch. I couldn't recommend this movie to anyone except my ex-. Even then, I have trouble believing she's understand any part of it.

This particular film was more like a documentary shot without the shaky hand-held camera. But, like the still photographs the movie mocks as being false, Closer allows only glimpses of the truth behind the myriad lies.

I want to be entertained at a movie and I cannot think of a single person to whom I'd recommend this movie. It was very well acted, scripted, and executed on all parts. But it was more painful than pleasant or enlightening.

Because Closer is, in a way, like sneaking a peek behind the closed doors of people we know, or more so, like looking in a mirror when we are at our most base and humanly human, some people seem to be viscerally turned off by it, as is apparent by a few of its more negative reviews.

To me, the very fact that it opens the door to such "voyeurism", if you will, is part of its deep emotional appeal.

Who among us can say we have never been tempted to be lured away from what we believe is love, by what we momentarily believe to be love? In closer, however these moments go beyond temptation, into lies, deceit, infidelity, misery, painful truths, abandonment, tears and suffering. "Love", in Closer, is shown to be against everything we've been taught to believe it should be, such as: honest/truthful, enduring, constant ... and faithful.

In short, it is a rabidly anti-romantic film, where, unbelievably, somewhere within each of these broken, self-serving, selfish, emotionally-underdeveloped people, brilliantly played by Jude Law, Julia Roberts, Clive Ovens and Natalie Portman, we find beauty, and in the end, a deep satisfaction upon seeing that love of self can lead to release and rebirth.

It had been a while since I watched this, and I am happy to say that I loved it this time around as much as the first time I laid eyes on it. And isn't that the mark of real love? That it endures?

Closer, is one of my favorite films.

9.5