If you study film, I reckon Sling Blade would be good to see. Mm Hmm. The acting is really impressive, Thornton especially pays close attention to everything for his very specific and unique character: ticks, posture, voice, accent, expression, vernacular. They are all consistent. In some ways, it's an easy role, the ticks and voice aren't subtle, but he still never seems like he's acting, or is an actor. So much so that the acting becomes quite noticeable... which is bad, right? Good acting fosters disbelief suspension so that you don't think you are watching anything. But this performance opens the door to intense scrutiny. I still don't see Bill Bob in there, so I remain impressed.
The cinematography is uncommon as well. Most scenes are long, individual pieces. They aren't cut up into little ribbons like most modern films, but actually resemble 30's film-making, or even stage theatre, more. There are a lot of walking shots, as if you are a character, or some guy on the street, wandering around with them. Accompanying these shots is music that is not only noticeable, but laughable. The most distracting part of the film. The music makes some scenes that were supposed (I think) to be sentimental into pretty funny gags (but perhaps that was what they were going for).
Unless the musical choices were meant to be comedic reprieve, they were poor choices. I was entertained by this, but whenever the movie is going for sentimental, it misses the mark. I have no doubt that the producers believed in what they were making, and were "Heartfelt" in their work, but it doesn't show through the score. It can be tense, and it can be funny (a little), and it can promote itself as a heartfelt, sentimental movie, but it still misses the mark.
This is the minority opinion. You may not agree. It is still very dramatic and, unlike Rat Race which was obviously playtime for everyone involved, Sling Blade was made to be intelligent and "important" and "serious". It is technically brilliant spit shined to perfection.
And simply fails to feel sentimental. By just the hair on Billy Bob's head.
The plot is very character driven, but it is hard to nail down just who Karl Childers is. It seems almost that they change him into who they want him to be for each scene, but I will not accuse them of such heresy! It has enough good and legitimate heresy to offer. Still, considering how carefully Karl is portrayed, it makes for a rather odd feeling. Especially for such an impressive movie which can mean a great many different things to even just one person. And a great many more other things to the people watching with them.
In the end, however, I found myself bored. It was a long, slow-paced movie! I am a little ashamed that I was so bored, but I still was. Long, slow-paced, character developing movies are rare, and I appriciate it's existance, but I like character stories more as books, apparently. I do have my biases against television.
Mm Hmm.
No comments:
Post a Comment