As a founding member of the San Francisco Film Critics Circle, I will vote for my 11th year in our annual awards. I'm now receiving all kinds of screeners in the mail, and I'm catching up with likely candidates that I missed during the year, or movies that haven't yet shown, or movies that I loved and would like to see again. I'd like for this to be a casual series of random thoughts, rather than actual reviews.First up is Compliance, which some of our members are already raving about (and others are moaning about). This movie caused massive walkouts wherever it was screened, and also many arguments. I think the arguments stem from one particular place. According to psychological research, about 75% of the American population would behave the exact same way in the same situation, but 100% of audiences believe that the characters in the movie were just stupid and shouldn't have fallen for so obvious a trick. That leaves 3 out of every 4 viewers that are lying to themselves, and probably not very happy about it.
I once had a trickster phone me early on a Saturday morning, claiming to be a debt collector and saying that I owed thousands. I didn't owe thousands, but he was very convincing. He had me wondering what I had done wrong, where I had screwed up. He had information that seemed authoritative. Finally, after some time -- and with some help from my wife at the time -- my defenses kicked in and I became sure that I was being conned. The man grew angry and left off with a warning that the cops would be at my door within the hour. I was sure he was bluffing, but I still kept an eye on the clock, relieved when the hour had officially, finally passed. But how many other people simply handed over their credit card numbers to this guy?
It's easy to be tricked, if you're caught off guard -- busy at work, or early on a Saturday morning before coffee -- and someone seems to have authority. And I had some sympathy for these characters -- but only up to a point. At one point these people cross a line and don't seem to realize it. So is that what Compliance is trying to say? What kind of film is this? Is it an entertainment, or is it informative? It's not an entertainment, that's for sure. It's not any fun, and it's not a film I'd recommend to anyone or voluntarily see again. But if it's informative, what is it trying to say? For about half the running time, it seems to be tricking the audience into going along with the victims, but then it reveals the con about halfway through, thereby condemning the stupid victims. The movie ends with what appears to be more condemnation.
Essentially, the movie walks a middle line between what it could have been. On one end, it could have been a documentary about this situation, which has apparently happened in some 70 real cases across America. It would have been easy to dig up real information about these cases, and interview real victims. Or it could have been a more caution-to-the-wind horror film or thriller, with more in the way of exploitation or entertainment value. With the message hidden within a genre film, it would have been easier to digest, and more entertaining to watch. But, as is, the film simply tells you its message, which is frankly not the way to get a message across. It's like listening to a soapbox sermon, and it's very tough to sit through.
The film is well-made, aside from a few amateur moves here and there, and it's well-acted. It definitely makes a strong impact. It has some kind of value, and far from worthless. It's worth thinking about and discussing, not just the subject of psychology and con men, but also the nature of film itself, and what the filmmaker has achieved. In terms of awards, season, however, Compliance is far too suspect to be going anywhere near my ballot. It's not a film to be celebrated, but seriously questioned.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder