Spartan
posted by NotAnyRon on March 28, 2004
David Mamet
-
2004
I just love David Mamet. He can essentially do no wrong by me. It's my weakness, I know, and it's practically impossible for me to look at the film without this weakness affecting my judgement. If you like Mamet, I think you'll love this film. If you don't like Mamet, you might find the film unbelievable and outrageous like my wife did.
While she found the dialogue stilted and amateurish, I was excited simply listening to the actors speak the characters' lines. Mamet's dialogue is far from realistic, although it seems realistic at first glance. His characters break into each other's sentences similar to people in actual conversation, but Mamet's characters always conform to a rhythmic pattern. They repeat their own words and each others', which is also similar to actual conversation, but Mamet's repetitions act more like a motif in a piece of music. In this film, the characters constantly refer to "the girl", as though the mention of her name or political importance are taboo. Mamet has used a similar device in many of his films ("the formula" from The Spanish Prisoner and "Go you Huskies!" from State And Main). For me, this generates a subconscious excitement and tension. There is also a sort of shop speak that's used throughout his films, in tis case regarding the FBI and secret service. Who knows how accurate this is, but it has the feel of accuracy.
The story itself is also pure Mamet. He has no patience (or need) for explaining the backstory (or his shop speak) before diving into the action. It's practically impossible to follow every piece of action during the first half hour of this particular film, and that's just fine with me. It all makes sense in the end, and the first half hour serves the purpose of inserting us into the confusion of the events. To explain them would be boring and would reduce the impact of the film. Nobody in the film needs the events explained. Why should the audience?
I do wonder if I would like the film as much if I wasn't aware that it was Mamet's. This question plagues me as both a filmgoer and a reviewer of films. Can I truly be objective when seeing a film? Do I need to be? Am I deluding myself into liking a film because I know from whence it comes? Do widely respected classics automatically rate higher for me or can I view them on their own merits? I honestly don't know the answer. I do know there are some creators whom I trust to make interesting work. Mamet is one of these creators and this is another of his wonderful films.