[影片]The Dying Gaul: Saarsgard
Posted: 2006-08-22 20:54
Just got Netflix so I've been gorging on some movies. I was intrigued by The Dying Gaul when I first read the reviews. But of course I'm biased because I'm a big fan of Peter Saarsgard.
Well, I can see why it has received mixed reviews. It is provacotive but flawed. It has many many problems, from the technical to the emotional, to the fundamental -- characters. I'll just mention the technical defect: Internet chats are the WORST device for movies. All screenwriters should avoid using any plot involving the Internet. It is impossible to do well on screen with any dramatic effects or tension.
But the movie has its merits. It's disturbing. It's unsettling. It's ambiguous and, I'm convinced although your mileage may vary, it's very cynical. I don't think the writer/director Craig Lucas, who is gay himself, takes a romantic or advocate postition on portraying the gay character(s) and their cause. Everyone is treated mercilessly, including the one who you would assume holds his sympathy -- only, I don't think he is sympathetic to any of the main characters.
Yet again 2 very proven heterosexual actors play act homosexual men on the screen. I guess only they feel "safe" enough to play gay roles. Peter Saarsgard especially gave a somewhat overtly "gay" performance. Both he and Campbell Scott are good, and Patrician Clarkson is even more ambiguous.
Slate.com's critic David Edelstein was especially offended by the moral implications of the ending (I cannot spoil it for you), but I think he missed the point. Actually a lot of critics assume Saarsgard's character represents the writer/director Craig Lucas' own voice. I think that assumption would seriously hinder one's interpretation of this movie.
I have my theory about why the movie is problematic. I think the author had a "cause" or a metaphor in mind when he constructed the play (the script was originally a play, which he turned into a movie). Somehow the metaphor overtook the storytelling.
I don't suppose anyone here is really going to watch this movie, but in the unlikely case that you are as big a Peter Saarsgard fan as I am, do rent it. It has a lot of his fascinating acting and OH THE VOICE! Be warned, however, that there are some homosexual scenes. Nothing graphic but a little more than Brokeback Mountain, which came out in the same year to a lot more fanfare than this.
(BTW he and Maggie Gyllenhaal are having a baby, I heard.)
Well, I can see why it has received mixed reviews. It is provacotive but flawed. It has many many problems, from the technical to the emotional, to the fundamental -- characters. I'll just mention the technical defect: Internet chats are the WORST device for movies. All screenwriters should avoid using any plot involving the Internet. It is impossible to do well on screen with any dramatic effects or tension.
But the movie has its merits. It's disturbing. It's unsettling. It's ambiguous and, I'm convinced although your mileage may vary, it's very cynical. I don't think the writer/director Craig Lucas, who is gay himself, takes a romantic or advocate postition on portraying the gay character(s) and their cause. Everyone is treated mercilessly, including the one who you would assume holds his sympathy -- only, I don't think he is sympathetic to any of the main characters.
Yet again 2 very proven heterosexual actors play act homosexual men on the screen. I guess only they feel "safe" enough to play gay roles. Peter Saarsgard especially gave a somewhat overtly "gay" performance. Both he and Campbell Scott are good, and Patrician Clarkson is even more ambiguous.
Slate.com's critic David Edelstein was especially offended by the moral implications of the ending (I cannot spoil it for you), but I think he missed the point. Actually a lot of critics assume Saarsgard's character represents the writer/director Craig Lucas' own voice. I think that assumption would seriously hinder one's interpretation of this movie.
I have my theory about why the movie is problematic. I think the author had a "cause" or a metaphor in mind when he constructed the play (the script was originally a play, which he turned into a movie). Somehow the metaphor overtook the storytelling.
I don't suppose anyone here is really going to watch this movie, but in the unlikely case that you are as big a Peter Saarsgard fan as I am, do rent it. It has a lot of his fascinating acting and OH THE VOICE! Be warned, however, that there are some homosexual scenes. Nothing graphic but a little more than Brokeback Mountain, which came out in the same year to a lot more fanfare than this.
(BTW he and Maggie Gyllenhaal are having a baby, I heard.)