Spoilers herein.
Mamet is the best writer in the business, and here is another of his films about films. There are dozens this year already by others (and about writing too) and this is an incredibly tight and multilayered edition, but the layers are different than usual.
Once again, we get relatively deep ruminations on the nature of art. Here, the mirror of film and film-within is reflected in Hollywood and a `real' town. Lots of smaller reflections too -- for instance in the external film, breasts are shown to the lead but not the audience, while this same issue is manipulated in the internal film. Lots of plot turns, including some unconsummated starts: who burned stuff down? why did it inspire the Huskies? what happened to 1975? Some truly great acting on the part of Hoffman and Macy. And the whole thing is funny as hell.
But what's truly fascinating is how Mamet layered the meanings and how he placed his wife in the center. His past few films -- the ones he directed plus `Vanya' -- were incredibly multilayered. He creates parallel worlds which the actors jump among, sometimes chasing, or annotating, or fighting. Very rich, very jazz. But in the last two films Rebecca has been lost as an actress. She's really quite accomplished, but as a straight ahead sort of actor. Hoffman can play several roles at once -- Pidgeon only one.
One can see that Mamet loves his levels -- it's the core of his achievement. But he loves his wife more. So here he has flattened his levels of abstraction so that they are not indirectly referenced but intrinsic in the story. That way, his wife can work with her role without being swamped. He even builds the entire creation of both films around her (she writes them both). And he adds a half-film of sorts where she creates her own, by mobilizing townspeople to fool Hoffman's character.
More. With Hoffman as his surrogate he even makes the story about this bending of the story for her, about sacrificing artifice for love. What a valentine! How enobling a love! I'll bet his next writing/directing effort (`The Heist,' now in production) is similarly built on her.
My only complaint continues to be his use of the camera, which is strictly mundane. His films are plays, all about the writing and acting, not at all about the filming in the filming. What will happen when Mamet's writing is seen through Ridley Scott's eye? We'll soon see.
Mamet is the best writer in the business, and here is another of his films about films. There are dozens this year already by others (and about writing too) and this is an incredibly tight and multilayered edition, but the layers are different than usual.
Once again, we get relatively deep ruminations on the nature of art. Here, the mirror of film and film-within is reflected in Hollywood and a `real' town. Lots of smaller reflections too -- for instance in the external film, breasts are shown to the lead but not the audience, while this same issue is manipulated in the internal film. Lots of plot turns, including some unconsummated starts: who burned stuff down? why did it inspire the Huskies? what happened to 1975? Some truly great acting on the part of Hoffman and Macy. And the whole thing is funny as hell.
But what's truly fascinating is how Mamet layered the meanings and how he placed his wife in the center. His past few films -- the ones he directed plus `Vanya' -- were incredibly multilayered. He creates parallel worlds which the actors jump among, sometimes chasing, or annotating, or fighting. Very rich, very jazz. But in the last two films Rebecca has been lost as an actress. She's really quite accomplished, but as a straight ahead sort of actor. Hoffman can play several roles at once -- Pidgeon only one.
One can see that Mamet loves his levels -- it's the core of his achievement. But he loves his wife more. So here he has flattened his levels of abstraction so that they are not indirectly referenced but intrinsic in the story. That way, his wife can work with her role without being swamped. He even builds the entire creation of both films around her (she writes them both). And he adds a half-film of sorts where she creates her own, by mobilizing townspeople to fool Hoffman's character.
More. With Hoffman as his surrogate he even makes the story about this bending of the story for her, about sacrificing artifice for love. What a valentine! How enobling a love! I'll bet his next writing/directing effort (`The Heist,' now in production) is similarly built on her.
My only complaint continues to be his use of the camera, which is strictly mundane. His films are plays, all about the writing and acting, not at all about the filming in the filming. What will happen when Mamet's writing is seen through Ridley Scott's eye? We'll soon see.