BEFORE: One of the toughest things about putting my linking chain together is showing some restraint, trying to predict when to NOT include every film I have with a particular actor or actress in it. Back in like Year 4 or 5, if I knew someone like David Strathairn was in three films on my list, I'd automatically throw all three of them together. But I've learned that sometimes it's best to watch only two out of the three, say, because that can keep my linking options open for later. He also appears in this film called "Hemingway & Gellhorn" which is on HBO on Demand, but if I save that for a Nicole Kidman chain later on, let's say, then I'll have more ways to link out of that section. Similarly, I could follow today's film with "The Blind Side", which also has Kathy Bates in it, but it's not football season, so that would seem out of place. Plus, I may need to connect to "Bad Santa 2" when Christmas rolls around, so it's better to give myself a possible way to do that.
Anyway, I've got my eye on Mother's Day, and right now it looks like I can still hit it on the nose, more or less, so adding another film to my plan would throw that off. I think I've already added one too many films with Samuel L. Jackson to the May line-up, but there's also a film with Margo Martindale that's no longer available on Netflix, so I think I can drop that one and nearly make up for it. It's a delicate balance, and this is why I can never consider next month's line-up to be certain, there has to be some flexibility that allows me to add two or drop one as needed.
Anyway, David Strathairn carries over from "The Spiderwick Chronicles", and "Hemingway & Gellhorn" and "The Blind Side" are tabled for now, with an option for future consideration.
THE PLOT: A big-city reporter travels to the small Maine town where her mother has been arrested for the murder of an elderly woman that she worked for as a maid.
AFTER: A great reason why this film got included, and not left out like that other film, is that I've heard good things about this film over the years, and always wondered about it. I think I may have passed on watching it several times, because I didn't know THAT MUCH about it, and I didn't have anything to pair with it on a DVD. But a few months ago I had three films with Philip Seymour Hoffman coming on to the list, and usually two films fit on a DVD. Rather than cram them all on to one disc at the 6-hour speed, I looked for another film to pair with one of them - one also had Kathy Bates in it, as you'll see tomorrow, so it made sense to pair that film up with this one, and not sacrifice anything.
Plus, I'm kind of on point putting this one here, coming out of a "Half-Halloween" theme, this one's about a murder case AND is based on a story by Stephen King. I've now worked my way systematically through 22 films based on the stories of Stephen King, all that I really have left is "Salem's Lot", "Children of the Corn", "The Dark Tower" and that remake of "It". Maybe there are still a few stragglers beyond that, like "The Mist" and "1922" but I'm not going to worry too much about it, I mean, Jeez, the guy's got like 260 writing credits on IMDB.
There's a lot to admire about the way that "Dolores Claiborne" unfolds, even though it relies heavily on flashbacks - but it's a great example of the way that flashbacks SHOULD play out, in this time where they are so often heavily abused in unnecessary fashion. Too many directors use this technique just so they can start their movie at the absolute most exciting, intriguing moment, and then snap back to show the audience how we got there, which also has the benefit of allowing them to pace the movie however they want, and skip over the boring parts. It's a very seductive trap, because it seems to so easily cover over any story problems, like a belt sander on a rough floor. But the end result is often confusing, and puts the burden of assembling the story squarely on the viewer, who may not possess the wherewithal, or the desire, to piece everything together.
"Dolores Claiborne" at first seemed like it would play out this way, because it starts with the momentous event where her employer appears to be thrown down a set of stairs, and then Dolores runs to the kitchen, ostensibly to look for some kind of weapon that will finish her off, settling on a heavy rolling pin. The postman rather inconveniently walks into the house (because this is a small Maine town, after all) and witnesses this scene, with Dolores full of murderous intent, which then leads to her arrest, and then later her daughter's arrival from New York to investigate - of course her daughter is a reporter, someone with the wherewithal, and the desire, to piece everything together.
Then the flashbacks start rolling in, and they're handled in a unique way, things don't get all fuzzy or suddenly cut to an obviously older scene with a subtitle like "20 Years Ago". Instead, a character from the past will walk into the present-day scene, and then the scene will gradually shift to the past. We briefly see the present-day character awestruck as they're witnessing the past, and in one flashback later in the film, walking through the past scene, in the style of Ebenezer Scrooge from "A Christmas Carol" walking through his own past or future as an unseen observer. You don't see this much any more in the language of film, because directors have mostly all shifted over to the cut-and-paste school of scene-building, this is a reminder that things used to be much fuzzier where flashbacks are concerned.
And this is key, each flashback arrives at the optimal time to gradually reveal the background information we need to cast new light on the present-day storyline. Ultimately we want to know if Dolores killed her employer, but first there are a number of other questions that need to be addressed. Did she kill her husband, 20 years prior, as the whole town believes? Was she a victim of domestic abuse? What happened between her husband and her daughter? There are multiple layers of dysfunction that need to be stripped away before we can get any clear answers.
One of the key flashbacks depicts a total solar eclipse taking place in Maine, and I bet you can tell what's coming here, it's a huge NITPICK POINT that people gather to view the eclipse without the proper protective eyewear. Since it coincides with such a major turning point in her life, Dolores herself stares right into an eclipse and suffers no ill effects. (But then again, so did our President last year, so make of that what you will.) However, in the case where someone is in the path of totality, where the sun completely covers the moon, it seems to be (relatively) OK to look at an eclipse, briefly anyway. BUT, this is when the sun's corona is visible, and that's dangerous to look at, too. I thought it might be another NP that Dolores mentions that this particular eclipse lasted for over six minutes and "set a record", because I just assumed that every eclipse solar would last for the same amount of time, but it turns out that the times vary, and may last as long as 7 1/2 minutes. Who knew?
Also starring Kathy Bates (last seen in "Around the World in 80 Days"), Jennifer Jason Leigh (last heard in "Anomalisa"), Christopher Plummer (last seen in "Beginners"), John C. Reilly (last seen in "Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie"), Eric Bogosian (last seen in "Wonderland"), Judy Parfitt (last seen in "Ever After"), Bob Gunton (last seen in "Rendition"), Roy Cooper (last seen in "The Exorcist"), Wayne Robson (last seen in "McCabe & Mrs. Miller"), Ruth Marshall, Ellen Muth, Weldon Allen, Tom Gallant.
RATING: 6 out of 10 bedpans
No comments:
Post a Comment