I would have a hard time explaining why I go to Kelly Reichartdt movies.
There is a reason you can only see them in New York City (a few select others)
and then maybe only in one theater. They are tiny movies. The pace is slow. The
plot bare-boned. The direction is simplistic. This may remind you of other low
budget auteurs. Perhaps the dudes in the French Wave, or Ingrid Bergman, or an
early David Lynch film. But I hate those other guys. Why did I pay a ticket to
see Kelly Reichardt?
I think it might be because Kelly Reichardt lacks pretension. There is
very little that is abstract about her movies. Her movies are small not because
they are metaphors about larger things. They are small because the subjects are
small and Kelly is interested in small things and that’s it. Her best movie, Wendy and Lucy, is about a woman and a
dog that takes place over a couple of days as her car breaks down and she tries
to get it fixed. The remarkable thing about it is the combination of how
specific it is about its subject combined with how little it seems the movie
wants you to feel a specific emotion toward the subject. Kelly Reichardt seems
to be a competent enough director to make bigger movies that have more to say
but her scope stays restrained and her purpose ambiguous to the point where her
art achieves a sort of rarefied quality to it. These are serious dramas,
sometimes about life and death issues, but they are handled in the complete
opposite of a heavy-handed manner. I always feel especially comfortable watching a Kelly
Reichardt film.
“Night Moves,” concerns the simple plans of three environmental
terrorists in Oregon, played by Jesse Eisenberg, Dakota Fanning, and Peter
Sarsgaard. Jesse and Dakota live on separate organic farms. Peter is a contact
Jesse has that used to be a marine and lives in the woods. He can make a bomb
that will blow up a little dam. It won’t really matter because there are 10
other dams on the river but it seems to them that something must be done and
blowing up this little dam may just get people talking about I don’t know
taking down the others. The movie concerns itself the most with Jesse Eisenberg
who probably at the beginning thinks he is in charge of this operation. But
little by little his idea of being in charge becomes more and more marginalized
to the point he seems to be acting randomly by the end. And maybe the point is
that this would be world changer was just acting randomly the entire time,
lashing out more in chaotic frustration as opposed to purposeful planning. I
don’t know. Kelly refuses to lecture me. I won’t give away what exactly happens
other than to say that true to form Kelly has the bomb explode offscreen midway
through and throws a rather unexpected wrench into the ending.
Jesse Eisenberg’s performance is at once granularly specific and mostly
opaque. It’s not that he doesn’t have feelings and thoughts. He just has nobody
to speak about them with. More ambiguous is the characters of Dakota Fanning
and Peter Sarsgaard. Their most dramatic moments are kept offscreen for the
benefit of profoundly confusing Jesse’s idea of what was his life’s narrative. At
one point he stands in the woods staring at his trembling hands. Boy, wouldn’t
you like to know what he is thinking.
What was it all about? Is this really how these terrible things happen?
No comments:
Post a Comment