The second half of my double griefure last night. THINGS WE LOST IN THE FIRE is the 2007 movie from acclaimed original screenplay by Allan Loeb. This script, in fact was the top script in the Hollywood Blacklist in 2005 -- a list of the best unproduced screenplays in Hollywood, beating both JUNO and LARS AND THE REAL GIRL, which later were nominated for Oscars for Best screenplay. So what happened? Why did those two movies get noms while TWLITF didn't? I'll compare the movie and the screenplay, as well as comparing this movie to the previous film, BROTHERS. And I'll do it while tap dancing. Yes, I'm breaking out the tap!
This is the story of a woman (Halle Berry) whose husband dies unexpectedly. In her gried she reaches out to one of her husband's oldest friends -- a heroin addict (Benecio del Toro). He comes to live with her and her children where he will help her and her children through their grief and they will help him with his addiction.
So how was the movie? It was okay. There are a couple nice moments, but a lot of it felt by-the-numbers and the big emotional scenes at the end didn't work for me. One (the friend's slip back into addiction) felt random and the other (the wife's big scene) didn't feel earned, and to be honest I didn't really get what she was saying. See, the title of the script -- Things We Lost in the Fire -- is about a house fire that burned up a bunch of photos and memory-stuff (which happened while the husband was still alive). Her big moment is telling the addict-friend that in that fire they had lost her husband. Not literally (he was shot outside an ice cream shop), but in some other way I didn't really understand. It's hard to make a drama and have the two big moments not work, and it probably says a lot about why LARS and JUNO got more attention at the big awards shows that year. It's the problem that permeates the movie -- and BROTHERS too for that matter -- that it just never seems to dig into the drama. For a movie that is supposed to deal with some deep stuff -- death, grief and addiction -- by the end it feels surprisingly shallow.
Of the two I guess I would recommend BROTHERS more. It at least seemed more interesting and the second half has some tension as you see Maguire go into meltdown. At the same time, TWLITF felt a little more complete -- while BROTHERS is fractured, even down to the question of protagonist, there is a consistant arc in FIRE that is being explored that we see to the end. But without depth, it lacks the zing that puts BROTHERS ahead by an inch.
Still, if neither of these seem to bring on the grief, try these: FINDING NEVERLAND (the story of J M Barrie writing Peter Pan to help three children cope with their dying mother -- yes, I cried), FORREST GUMP, GHOST, UP, THE BIG CHILL or maybe even GARDEN STATE (which is kind of grief-lite compared to the others, but still a wonderful movie).
*** HEAVY SPOILERS ***
So what happened? How did one of the most acclaimed movies of the year fail to become one of the most acclaimed movies of the year? Let's look at the script vs the movie. In the movie, there is one scene with the husband and his child, maybe a minute long, and then we jump forward after the husband's death and quickly to the funeral where we meet his addict friend. These are our first impressions of them -- grieving for a man we have never seen them with. We don't know anything about their marriage. We don't know anything about their friendship. We also don't see the firend as an addict. He says it at the funeral, but it's different to hear someone say it vs seeing them in the midst of their addiction. Now compare that to the script -- the father/child scene is still there, but now we see the husband and wife together. They argue because he wants to leave to go visit his friend. The wife doesn't see why he hasn't given up on the friend who is an addict, but the husband hasn't given up on him. He visits his addict friend and we see their friendship. Then the husband goes back to his wife who is still angry at him. It is only after that that the husband is killed and now we see them struggle with grief -- not struggle with some abstract grief, but struggle with the grief of losing this man that we have seen them with. How much more do you feel the loss now? Instead, in the movie they take all those scenes and put them after the funeral while the wife is struggling with her grief. Why? Maybe they wanted to get to the grief sooner. Maybe they wanted to bring in the friend sooner. But part of storytelling is moving the audience -- the emotional ups and downs. In the movie we start down -- as far as we know all these characters know is grief. In the script we start up -- with love and friendship -- and then get slammed down with his death. And showing those scenes in flashback? Why would anyone think that would work? Maybe they figured that since THE BIG CHILL started post-death then this could too. Except The Big C is an ensemble film -- we spend the rest of the time seeing these friendships, hearing them talk, etc. It's about relationships and people questioning themselves. That isn't what's happening in ...FIRE. This isn't really a movie abou relationships, especially not between the wife and addict, which never gets beyond friendship. This really about two seperate people (or more if you include her children) as each of them struggle with their grief and addiction. Not starting with her and her husband, not showing us first him in the swell of his addiction is just a huge mistake. And again I can understand that quick thinking -- the movie is about these two people, let's get them on screen together as soon as possible, and the movie is about grief so let's move that up as much as possible -- but by detroying that up and down arc you are destroying the emotional power of the film.
Bruce Rubin, the writer of GHOST, once said all movie start in the light, move into darkness, and then struggle to get back into the light. It's a shame the makes of ...FIRE hadn't heard that too.
No comments:
Post a Comment