Click Poster to Purchase
Review #69 of 365
Film: Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story [R] 94 minutes
W.I.P.: $10.75
When 1st Seen: 20 March 2006
Where Viewed: Landmark Esquire, Denver, CO
Time: 4:45 p.m.
Review Dedicated to: Greg M. of Sacramento, CA
 |
DVD |
mscthompson: What am I supposed to do? Should I admit that I’m not as…well…well-seen? Is that the movie equivalent to well-read of the literary world? Anyway, should I just go out and say it? What if I do, and people stop reading my reviews? What if they never come back? What if they think I lack credibility as a critic? Oh gosh. I’m awful. I cannot write a lick. (Where’d that come from? Must be that Brit-speak spilling over from yesterday.) Ok, I’ll do it. I don’t see an option.
To begin, I’ve never in my life seen a film quite like Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story. If you can even get past the title, which I am simply going to say is a pun and not a pun all at once, which tidily befits the film based on Laurence Sterne's novel, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman.. While my age is still below 45, I don’t mean to offer up a pile of excuses, I guess I’m simply not as well-seen (I’ll use that at the movie equivalent to the literary ‘well-read’) as some movie critics. Perhaps there are dozens of films like this. To give you a glimpse of what I’m babbling about, certainly there have been movies within movies or plays within plays since the idea came to a writer to write a story about a story. Well, so, that idea isn’t that new and, my gosh, in thinking about the film Being John Malkovich, really all sorts of absurd things have been done in movies. So, in TS: ACBS (if you don’t mind me abbreviating that unholy, in length, title) the idea of taking this nearly unfilmable novel and adapting it so that we have a look at the story/life of Tristram Shandy (including the sad details of how he came to be named the Tristram) interspersed with the lives of the actors and actress and director and producers of the film being made of Tristram’s life isn’t so incomprehensible now is it?
mscthompson: Blast, I hope I haven’t already started to confuse everyone. I don’t think that was too confusion. I’ve re-read it several time. Goodness knows I am known for my spectacularly long sentences, and I’ve worked hard to keep these shorter and more direct without too many puns in and of themselves or other embedded meaning, at least I think. I’ve also tried not to be too sarcastic, I think. Right so, then I should probably go on. Maybe I should just stick to the basics. The acting, the directing, the writing, the cinematography? Yikes. I could. But, that wouldn’t do the film justice. Rather, I think the film is worthy of a different sort of spin. But what kind? Hmm. Maybe I could continue with a bit more of how the film works and then intersperse that with some of my thoughts and reflections on the technique used and how, if it all it worked? Yes, that’s the ticket. That will sell this thing. Zing it home, fierce kid!
Ok, so picture a movie about the making of this movie. Scenes of the actors having conversations with the costume people about whether the pockets in the dress coat are authentically placed near the bottom hem. Scenes of the director talking with the producers about whether or not they can get the real Gillian Anderson to come over and play the resurrected character of the widow. Scenes of the actors, not being their characters, but being themselves talking about screen time and their personal lives. Picture all of that interspersed with actual scenes of the story of Tristram Shandy’s life. Then, you have the idea. So, in effect, each actor in the film is really playing a dual role—his life outside the film and his character within the Tristram Shandy story. Of course, the fun is that the actors are playing themselves, but not their real selves outside of the Tristram story. For example, Tristram Shandy is played by a host of actors of various ages but mainly by British comedian, Steve Coogan. Meanwhile, Kelly (last seen inNanny McPhee) Macdonald plays Jenny, Steve Coogan's Girlfriend. So, Ms Macdonald, whose role is entirely outside of the film within the film, is NOT playing herself, unlike Steve Coogan who does play himself outside the film, though with this imaginary life and girlfriend Jenny. So, this makes for an amusing paradox especially when things, like the call to Gillian Anderson’s agent to see if Gillian will appear in the film within the film—which, by the way, she does agree to do despite the fact they all fear she will cost more than the infamous battle scene for the film. And, oddly, Jeremy Northam plays the director of the film named Mark, so we only see him on set and in between scenes talking with actors and prop designers, etc., but, of course, paradoxically he is not the director of the real film, that honor, strangely, went to Michael Winterbottom.
mscthompson: Hmm, I wonder if I should explain my use of the word ‘strangely’ or will that just be gotten easily? Really, I don’t mean that it is strange that Michael Winterbottom directed the film, rather, I find it odd that he didn’t just play himself as the director too. He could have saved, if nothing else, a salary. Maybe he doesn’t consider himself an actor or maybe he thought it would have been too confusing. Jeremy Northam was so good playing the director, though. I wonder if he could have directed the real film too? Of course, just because you can play a director and make it look good, doesn’t mean you’ll be a great director. Interesting. I think I should probably just keep it simple. That’s the ticket. “Off you go then,” as Simon Cowell always says.
Strange only because it would have saved a salary if Mr. Winterbottom just played the director of the film within the film himself, and you know the new Hollywood is all about the bottom line. Alright, so we have a creative and interesting concept that is brought to the screen well. The direction is excellent, and the acting is top notch. I would be remiss if I neglected screen co-star, Rob Brydon, who plays the best friend both in and out of the film within the film.
So, then, the final question. Was it a good movie?
mscthompson: Hmm, I’m thinking that should be answered within the answer. That would be in keeping with the method. But, it might make no sense. Let’s try it.
The movie within the movie was ok. It was not as clear and crisp as it would have been were it just unspooled like any other film. It was funny, but not hilarious. The film outside the film was clever, funny, and interesting. It gave a degree of insight as to what goes on and the kind of conversations cast members have with the set decorators and each other and their egos, etc. Now, as for the entire effect of the process used and the two stories added together. It left me with some mixed feelings. I love the attempt. It was nearly ingenious. It wasn’t rip-roaring funny, but there were some hilarious parts. Steve Coogan did a really great job. The whole thing left me feeling like it was worth the effort; but, perhaps, some elements of the Tristram Shandy story itself were missing that might have carried that story further? I would say this film is worth giving a shot.
Available for Purchase or Pre-Order on DVD
Find your movies at MoviesUnlimited.com.
Tristram Shandy: A Cock And Bull Story [DVD](2005) DVD
| DVD | The Original Book | |
1 comment:
Interesting blog!
Check out my band! You will like it!
myspace.com/backyardsympathy
Post a Comment