December 1, 2012
-
Movie Review: Killing Them Softly — Artsy but not Artful
We turned our “evening-out” attention last night to the new Brad Pitt film Killing Them Softly, which is garnering great reviews from critics (according to Rotten Tomatoes’ aggregator). And as a bottom line, I have to say I was disappointed.
I like artistic films. Last weekend we saw Life of Pi, which was engaging and fascinating and beautifully filmed. Even though Pi was a long feature, I enjoyed it; and although I don’t know how I feel about the cloud of ambiguity + religious tones that serve to wrap up the experience, I’m really glad I saw it.
Killing Them Softly, however, always seemed to tip its hand that it was trying to be “artsy.” The film uses a thin plot about a robbery in the seedy underworld of a Northeastern city (maybe Philly?) to stitch together several very impressive scenes. The acting is superb and nuanced. But the film is dull.
I think Coart summed it up best when afterward he said, “I feel like that was a master’s thesis for acting technique.” You can stand back and be impressed by the excellent performances by all of the principal cast — Brad Pitt, James Gandolfini, and several others — but you don’t like any of those characters, and you aren’t really drawn into what they’re trying to do.
Even worse, the film offers a totally-not-veiled-at-all attempt at social commentary. The background audio track constantly streams news clips about the financial downturn of 2008, with the voice of Bush or McCain or Obama or some financial pundit serving in place of a soundtrack. The real BOOM moment of the film, thematically, happens in the very last line … and then you get the credits. I guess the director wants me to feel like America is a business and even the mob is hurt by the downturn, even criminal “contractors” have to put up with the tyranny of the rich and the unfairness of the current system.
*yawn*
Any movie that gets “preachy” loses its status as art, IMHO. And even a pretty film has to still succeed as a story piece.
Bottom line: Pass this one up in theaters. If you really appreciate outstanding acting technique, watch it on DVD/Netflix in a few months.
Comments (3)
“Any movie that gets “preachy” loses its status as art, IMHO. And even a pretty film has to still succeed as a story piece.”
That’s a juicy statement. I typed out a short essay in response to the first part of that statement (agreeing with you, really) but then decided to not even post it and leave it as a “we’ll just have to drink coffee and talk about this sometime.”
@nastynate78 - yay! coffee & chat with Nate!! Next week? I’m buried this week. Next week is cool tho.
PS. I think you should have one hell of a birthday party because I want to come.
@nastynate78 - I do think “didactic” art has a place, primarily for children. Young kids benefit from a clearly-stated “point” ….sometimes, at least. Though I’m cool with letting young kids learn to enjoy ambiguity too.
I don’t think ART — as in visual — is destroyed by preachiness necessarily, though “obvious” art is often very weak.
But in plays, film, books, poetry, short stories — being “preachy” gets on my nerves. Especially when stacked up against masterful storytellers like Flannery O’Connor who could beat you with her concrete-laden point yet it doesn’t feel like a beating. More like a punch to the stomach that you weren’t expecting to come from that direction…..