There’s
simply too much to talk about in regard to The
Counselor for it not to remain a topic for a long time ahead. It starts
obviously with the expectations, which were enormous up until about a week
before its release last October, when heads began to scratch once reviews
weren’t showing up. They eventually did, and while a few big names, like
Manhola Dargis and Richard Roeper, gave it extensive praise, they were overshadowed
by the D grade audience cinemascore, Andrew O’Heir’s explosive lambasting (meet the worst movie ever made, the
headline to his review read), the dismal box office showing, and the overall
consensus that talent (Cormac McCarthy, Ridley Scott, and a dream cast) doesn’t
always equal success.
In short,
the reception was powerful, though obviously not in a good kind of way, and
thus despite it being a letdown, it certainly seems to have a long life ahead.
The question, then, is whether it will be a life fueled by the film’s absurdity
and complete disregard for audience hopes, or whether it will be a movie that
actually gets reappraised as time goes on (already, though there are hints of a
greater acceptance for the picture; the movie needed a breather so people could
recover from the shock that it isn’t great and actually begin to consider
just how fascinating a piece of cinema it really is; also, the extended cut
just out on DVD is already being called the
cut of the film, which has led some to give the movie a second chance).
I don’t
think there’s quite enough here for The
Counselor to ever be called a good piece of cinema, let alone a great film,
a la Heaven’s Gate. While that film
suffered from unfair attacks on its release, everyone was pretty much right
about saying The Counselor was
terribly paced, chock full of pseudo-philosophical jargon, and borderline
incoherent from a narrative standpoint (also, the story is flat out stupid, and
when Dean Morris shows up for a brief scene, we’re reminded how inferior a drug
plot this to some of the episodes in Breaking
Bad). I think it will end up being these very elements, combined with the
talent involved, that will make people to continue to watch it, laugh at it, be
disturbed by it, and hopefully discuss it. After all, the emphasis shouldn’t always
be on movies that are good, but on the bad ones and not just why, but how they’re bad.
I didn’t
actually see the movie during its theatrical run, but after watching the extended
cut at home, I found myself intrigued and eager to go over its various elements
with someone. It’s the rare bad film that warrants discussion. What exactly is
wrong with McCarthy’s monologues? Do they have any virtues? Does Ridley Scott’s
direction serve his overall script positively or negatively? Is this movie
really unlike anything that’s ever been made?
I’ll go out
saying what I found most interesting about it: The balance that McCarthy
strikes between the obviously pulpy elements (the tigers, the car sex, Javier
Bardem’s hair, the shocking decapitations) and the Everyman nature of the
Fassbender character and his attempt for some metaphysical enlightenment. What
is McCarthy trying to do? I think he wants to take a normal person who does
something very stupid, gets involved in something very real, and go beyond the
normal implications of such an act. I need to go back and listen to some of the
monologues again, but for now I’m with the consensus that they’re entertaining
in their forcefulness, which ultimately keeps McCarthy from saying in the right
way what he wants to say.
No comments:
Post a Comment