"Metteur-en-scene, director. The point is not to direct someone but to direct oneself." -Robert Bresson, Notes on the Cinematographer
There seems to be a general disaster zone that the majority of actors-turned-directors wander into. It is to actually try to direct the film (usually according to some miniscule fraction of theory or method that they have recently misunderstood.) A number of examples come to mind of which, Buscemi citing Cassavetes and Hanks naming Kurosawa, Kubrick and Eisenstein in the same breath are only the most notorious examples. Anyone who saw, Trees Lounge or That Thing You Do knows that despite their differences the films share an alarming capacity for self-delusion. Flawed assumptions, heavy-handed referencing and all around awkward articulations are the hallmarks of such films which, incidentally, are not without a lot of company. Gary Oldman's latest film Nil by Mouth, avoids such pitfalls by recognising the number one job of the actor-director: to marshall their unique talents (knowledge of performance and interpretation) in a coherent effort. No flashy loud camera work (Albino Alligator), no overpriced contrived production values (Braveheart) and no heavy handed ludicrous symbolism (Dead Man Walking). Gary Oldman, like accomplished actor-directors before him (epitomised by the late John Cassavetes, and not unlike the more recent efforts of Sean Penn) makes a number of very specific directorial decisions guided by what he believes the crux of cinematic representation to be. Just as Errol Morris who studied Philosophy, or Antonionni who studied Political Economy, employ directorial methods that privelege their given expertise. In the case of the actor-director this expertise is clear, and it is often insecutrity about acknowledging such limits that lead actor-directors astray. Oldman has reminded us that when such errors are not made the results are complex and astounding films.
Nil by Mouth chronicles the dynamic between a lower-class London family (This is all you really need to know). Oldman wisely, keeps the plotting down to a minimum concentrating instead on accurately rendering the complexity of the characters and their relationships. For much of this he defers to the actors (all of whom play superbly) by the specific camera decisions he makes. Throughout the film, Oldman's camera is never in the wrong place but more importantly the scale of the shots is perfect. Vitrually the entire film is shot in close and medium shots through long lenses that truly crush the depth of field. There is also inly a very selective use of two-shots and group shots in the film. To call the result clasutrophobic and uncomfortable is a gross understatement. The implications of this technique for the narrative are manifold: it alludes to the enclosed world of the characters as well as establishing a number of key associations between these characters. This gives them a first layer to work with. More importantly, howver, the longer lenses, necessarily allowed Oldman to move away from the actors freeing up their physical space despite the very particular diegetic space (oweing to the reduced depth of field.) It is a technique not unlike the one Cassavets uses in A Woman Under the Influence. The result of these decisions is apparent in the job the actors do which I'v already said is excellent. Oldman could have chosen any number of avenues by which to shoot these people, all of which would have left a flawed product that udermined the strength of the performances. Although, I don't think every film should be made this way, when it is an actor at the helm, the technique truly seems perfect.
Over and above these stylistic elements the narrative of Nil by Mouth is extremely assured. With a running time of just over two hours, Oldman clearly had no doubts about the events to be included in the portrayal. The film is apparently based on autobiographical events, which shows in the film's authenticity. The plotting is kept to a minimum but this does not mean the film was not carefully scripted. There are a number of crucial speeches, which are placed at specifc times in the film for specific reasons. In a number of cases Oldman foregoes dramtatic efficiency in order to convey a mood uf unese and discomfort. The prominence of the unique South Londin accent is only the ost prominent example of this. The characters seem incapable of not talking, as if constantly nervous and hiding something. Even towards the end of the film, in a lengthy scene of Ray left to his own devices this tendency does not stop. The scene is deftly edited as to have Ray almost talking with or at (not to) himself. This underscores some of the ambiguity with which the Ray husband is treated. Such a treatment is genuine in a way that a film like Bastard from Carolina could not hope to be.
I am not sure if Oldman intends to direct other projects or if this was a one time effort to exorcise a number of demons that the actor has harboured. One source (I can't remeber who) has said that Oldman was offended by the apparent glamourising of street and drug culture in Trainspotting and thus finally decided to commit his idea to celluloid. The accusation is a common one that I think is unfair but we can be thankful that Oldman chose to respond in the manner that he did. We can only hope more actors show such poise in their future directing efforts..
-- -Omar Odeh http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/3920
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews