BEFORE: OK, final ten films, now we're really getting down to the end of the year. And 19 days until Christmas, I'm pretty darn sure I can make it. Plus I'm riding high, I know that none of my December films are needed for January, and vice versa. All I've got to do now is stick to the plan, not make any sudden moves, and this year will be over before you know it. If I can get to my two Christmas movies, and the chain remains unbroken, then every decision made during the year regarding which movies to watch is thus proven to be a good one. Umm, except maybe the decision to watch "Cats".
Johnathon Schaech carries over from "Marauders".
THE PLOT: A voyeuristic hotel clerk becomes the subject of a murder investigation.
AFTER: This morning, on my way to work, after switching subway trains I was standing on the platform at 14th Street in Manhattan, waiting for the F or M train to take me two more stops, when I saw a man walking on the tracks, yelling about the CIA and the FBI (New York is BACK, baby!). My first thought is, this guy's a goner, he's so close to where the train's going to enter the station that even if the conductor sees him, there's no way he can stop the train in time. Then my second thought is, "I've GOT to get out of here..." because if the train hits this guy, and I'm a witness, because I'll have to give a statement or fill out a form and that will make me super late for work, for sure. So instead of calling 911, I started to leave the station. Another person on the platform was already using the emergency phone on the platform to contact subway police, so I don't feel too bad about my decision to beat it out of there. But then that sick part of me deep inside was kind of curious, what would it look like if this guy got hit by the train, going super fast? He'd be splattered into bits, right? Yeah, sure, visually interesting, but I don't really like the dark part of brain that would find that interesting, plus what if seeing that happen gives me nightmares, and they don't go away? What if my brain enjoys it just a little too much, and starts seeking out other accidents to witness, chasing that unattainable high again and again? There were just no good things that could result from me watching a man get killed by a train.
As it turned out, the message that there was someone on the tracks did reach the conductor in time, because the train stopped in time. Good people on the platform were also waving their arms to get the train to stop, but I'd like to think that Good Samaritan who placed the phone call made the difference, and I congratulated him for doing a good thing, just in case nobody else today would give him any credit for this. I bring this up in relation to "The Night Clerk" because it also features a character who does a bad, bad thing - he's got cameras set up in a hotel room where he works so he can record people's private affairs (often literally) and conversations. He may be doing this for a valid (?) reason, but that just doesn't make it right. And ultimately, no good can come of this, I guarantee it.
The reason, if you can believe it, is that this young(ish) man, Bart, has autism, or Asperger's, and he studies the way that people interact with each other and have conversations, so that he can practice at home and get better at conversations himself. Nope, not good enough, recording people in hotel rooms is still wrong, even if you think this is OK. Recording ANYONE without their consent is over the line, probably illegal, and you just can't get around this. Why can't he record people having public conversations, people who already know they're being taped - it's the whole secretive nature of this that makes it wrong. Sure, people probably get away with a lot of illegal stuff in hotel rooms, but that doesn't make all that stuff right, either. When I check in to my suite I want to know that nobody's got eyes on me - even if I'm not doing anything wrong.
This is all the movie's set-up, of course, to present an updated version of "Rear Window". The person who's watching is going to see something illegal, and then of course nobody's going to believe him, or he'll become a suspect himself. Even the guy who's not all there upstairs somehow seems to know that what he's been doing is wrong, though, because if the police find his tiny hidden cameras in an active crime scene, then he's going to be in a lot of trouble. He's got the wherewithal to get into the room and collect his tech, but now he's also tampered with an active crime scene, so that's another infraction. Plus on top of THAT, he's got video evidence connected to a murder but he's not turning it in to the authorities, so that's withholding evidence, another crime. Boy, the hits just keep on coming here, don't they?
And come on, which is it, does this guy have diminished capacity, the inability to tell right from wrong, or doesn't he? He knows he's got to get his cameras out before they're found, because he's been spying on hotel guests, and that's a very bad thing, even if he's not a pervert or doing this to see naked people. (Another NITPICK POINT: He just wants their conversations? There's a hot chick in a bathrobe walking around, and he's only interested in what she's got to say? OK, clearly there IS something wrong with him.)
All Bart knows is that a woman is dead, but wouldn't you know it, the cameras caught nearly everything BUT the killer's face. NITPICK POINT #2: with THAT many cameras? I find that hard to believe. How come he's got six different angles of HER face, but no clear image of his? This is just to prevent the audience from knowing the killer's identity, obvi. But come on, there are only like 6 main characters, so it's not hard to figure out at all.
Thankfully, Bart has an overprotective mother who points out to the police detective that Bart couldn't have done this, he doesn't own a gun, he doesn't know how to shoot a gun, and he'd never do anything wrong. Umm, except for spying on people in hotel rooms, that is. (Again, WTF?). If Bart were a bit more normal, you get the feeling that maybe the detective's covering for somebody, and he'd love to pin the murder on Bart, though he knows he'd never make it stick. Now, if this were a "Law & Order: SVU" episode, Bart would be in lock-up in the first act of the show, and you'd have to wait 47 more minutes for the real killer to be revealed. (It's the music teacher, right? It's always the music teacher...).
But, for some unknown reason, Bart had blood on his hands (literally) and is still allowed to walk around and live his life - he's transferred to another hotel in the same chain, which thankfully has the same layout and the same policies and very similar looking rooms (probably so the film crew could just shoot in ONE hotel location and not have to pay for a second location fee...). Bart makes friends with a young woman staying at the new location, and since she's got a brother who's also on the spectrum, she's very sympathetic towards him. Bart starts extra rehearsals on how to have a conversation with her, gets a haircut and a new suit, and mistakenly believes he's got a chance with her.
I won't say any more except that the whole thing's a situation that can't POSSIBLY end well, so of course it doesn't. Everything's connected, of course, and you don't turn your life around just by moving to the next hotel in the chain. Still, I wonder why the police detective isn't held just a bit more accountable for not showing any interest in solving the murder. Isn't there some kind of check in the system for when a cop's not doing his job? I'd like to think so, but honestly I don't know for sure. Still, let's consider that NITPICK POINT #3, just to be on the safe side. And I don't understand the causes and effects of autism any more than science does, but I know that kid's not going to get any more aware of the world as long as Mommy keeps fighting his battles for him.
The big news story this week, of course, is this Ethan Crumbley kid who shot and killed four people at his school, and his parents are being held responsible. I support this notion to some degree, because apparently they gave him the gun as a gift, and they knew he had mental problems. So yeah, they can't charge the parents with murder, but reckless endangerment sounds about right. I think they should also be held accountable for naming their kid "Ethan Crumbley", because you just KNOW that kid's going to get teased at school. He sounds like a damn Charles Dickens villain, and this is the 21st century! If you give your kid a weird name like that, you're just setting him up for a teenhood of being teased and bullied, and then one day that kid's likely to explode in anger and take it out on others. I guess you can't do anything about the last name "Crumbley", and that's part of the problem, but give him a normal first name, like Steve or Bob or Bill, help the kid out. Like the main character here, his full name is Bartholomew Bromley, and that's nearly just as bad - you're just setting a kid up for failure if you name him like that. You wonder why he's socially awkward? THAT'S WHY!
Also starring Tye Sheridan (last seen in "The Tree of Life"), Helen Hunt (last seen in "A Good Woman"), Ana de Armas (last seen in "Yesterday"), John Lequizamo (last seen in "One for the Money"), Jacque Gray, Joey Miyashima (last seen in "Time Freak"), Austin Archer, D.L. Walker (last seen in "Darling Companion"), Ibraham Quraishi, Frantz Louizia, Pam Eichner, Walter Platz.
RATING: 3 out of 10 pints of ice cream
No comments:
Post a Comment