I read through several reviews of this film. It seems that many of the people who didn't like this film where upset that the film "lied" to us. They say that movies are not supposed to do that. They got that right. Film is not supposed to do that. Maybe that is one of the reasons why this film does that. Many of the reviewers said they were drawn into to the story, only to have their hopes and aspirations smashed at the end. They couldn't understand why the filmmakers would do this. Is it possible that they "got" the film without really getting it? To be correct, the film doesn't lie. The character telling the story lies. The camera is simply showing us what the narrator is telling us. We are so accustomed to believing what the camera shows us, that we accept without reserve. We forget that the "camera" is actually the filmmaker, a human being (in most cases), telling us a story. People lie. We cannot always trust people. We cannot always trust what seems to be objective reality. This film does the same thing that "Rashomon" and "Persona" do, although I consider those films deeper and more profound. We the audience are Dave Kujan, Chazz Palminteri's character. We are falling for the lie being fed to us. Though what we are being told is not totally a lie. Many of the things said and told are true. A lie is not a lie unless it contains much truth. Most of what we see actually happened. The fact that not all of it did is what makes the film so interesting. We are left scratching our heads trying to figure out what actually happened. What we thought we knew we no longer know that we know. I think that is one of the marks of a great film. It stays with you, for good or bad. It challenges your idea about film.
Review of The Usual Suspects
