I'll be honest. I was not expecting a parallel with Steven Soderbergh at all in this marathon. In my Soderbergh marathon, I covered Kafka, which was Soderbergh's second movie. Part of that movie was based on The Trial, one of Kafka's most well-known novels. And of course, this movie, which came further into Welles career, was based entirely on the novel The Trial.
In both cases, I feel not entirely qualified to judge the movie. Because both movies seem largely to depend on mood, and that mood is Kafkaesque, a mood I'm not necessarily in tune to, being mostly unfamiliar with the author's work. I suppose I should read The Trial and watch these movies again and then maybe I'll feel more qualified.
But... that's not what movies are about! The vast majority of people will never have read the novel, short story, or comic book that a movie is based on, and they're forced to judge the movie on its own merits, not with a preexisting knowledge. So I can't take that cop-out and just be done with this movie.
Of the two, I think Orson Welles is the more successful movie. I think it helps that he is just adapting the novel straight while Soderbergh is sort of crafting an original narrative. There's more of a singular purpose that propels the movie forward, which is Josef K. trying to figure out what crime he's being accused of so he can defend himself.
If there's a weakness in this movie, I think it's inherent in the material. Which is to say, it's the point. The movie is almost incoherent about what exactly is happening, but well I feel like that's what the movie is trying to do. Josef K. has no idea what's going on, and we're just thrust into his world and the absolute insanity of what's happening to him.
Basically, the movie is a mostly faithful adaptation of the novel. I mean I imagine. I haven't read it. But I can see how it'd be easier to portray confusion when you're reading about the perspective of Josef K as opposed to seeing it on screen. So I think Welles did about the best he could with putting us in the mind of someone who is rightfully paranoid and lost.
I don't really understand the women though. I know it's in the novel. But he encounters three separate women who appear to want to fuck him. Why? I'm sure there's a reason. He had some sort of platonic or otherwise relationship with his neighbor, so that one is easy enough to explain. The others? Kafka appears to be saying something here but what I do not know. I had a similar problem with Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut, where everyone wanted to fuck Tom Cruise.
You can tell this is well-directed. Not that the narrative really needed the push, but the camera angles add to the uneasy feeling of the movie. Lots and lots of disorienting camera angles to let you know something's not right. It certainly adds to the tension of the film.
As for Welles performance, it's about as expected. At this point in his career, he could be menacing in a bed, and that's exactly what he is. He had that kind of presence and voice that he didn't really need to do much but be there and talk and you were afraid of him. Which reportedly transferred to real life whenever he was on set with certain actors, so clearly he just had an intimidating presence about him. Which was used quite effectively in his movies.
But the real star in the movie is Anthony Perkins, a couple years after Pyscho pigeonholed his career. He plays a twitchy, nervous guy - nothing like Norman Bates - and he's very good. I know he was not happy about the way his career developed post-Pyscho, but he also said this role was one of the highlights of his career.
The interesting thing about The Trial is that at first, it basically looks like a filmed stage play. The first scene is quite long. He spends time asking the cops what he's being charged with, and then he talks to his two neighbors, and the whole thing lasts like 20 minutes and it appears the 20 minutes is meant to be roughly 20 minutes on screen too. And as he starts going to new locations, the camera angles start being disorienting.
Anyway, I wish I could say I loved watching this more, but without a specific connection to the novel it's based on, I did not. I just thought it was a well-made film that I believe was essentially true to the novel, and I think that's all you can ask for in an adaptation.
3.5/4 stars
No comments:
Post a Comment