7/10
Feiffer's folly?
4 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This movie could be described as either a surrealistic comedy of manners or a theater of the absurd in New York suburbia. Jules Feiffer has opened out his stage play considerably, although it is still easily recognizable as a photographed stage piece. Alan Arkin's direction with its unremitting focus on the players has seen to that. The acting is theatrical rather than cinematic and the camera-work is completely unobtrusive. Many of Feiffer's points are over-labored both by the script and the players. Some scenes run far too long and there is far too much repetitive and simply filling-in dialogue. Indeed the players are allowed to run off the mouth and were obviously encouraged to declaim their lines with far too much shouting. The film could also do with some expert trimming. This would not only clarify the script's points but add a bit of luster to the humor and improve the pace as well. It would also allow the viewer less time to consider the mechanics, the artifices and the artificiality of the script. Another problem is that we are never really caught up with the characters. In fact, we are always remote. We see them on another plane as it were. As a result, the movie comes across with much less force and humor. Nevertheless, Feiffer remains true to his corrosive urban vision right to the end. There is no copping out or watering down. All the players come across well, especially Marcia Rodd who is less theatrical than the rest of the cast. There are also some good visual gags which were especially written for this film version, although many of them are muffed by routine or pedestrian handling. All in all, this is a movie that would probably come across more effectively in small doses. 110 minutes is a long time to look on as an uninvolved spectator. Production values are more than adequate and they certainly benefit from location filming.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed