Insider Meets Preston Sturges?
In Contention's Guy Lodge, filing from the Venice Film festival, is calling Steven Soderbergh's The Informant! (Warner Bros., 9.18) "a flip, frisky entertainment that may well represent the year's most audacious feat of adaptation."
Yeah, but does it work? I've heard that it does and also that it doesn't quite. But either way Marvin Hamlisch's score is an arch and fuddy-duddy character in itself.
Imagine standing in a 7-11 parking lot with a couple of homies at 10:45 pm, and one of them asks what's good and you say The Informant!, and the guy says, "Oh, yeah...what's good about it?" And you go, "Well, it's, uhm...because it may be the year's most audacious feat of adaptation! And it's, like, frisky!" You can't say stuff like this in a parking lot. You need to look the bro' in the face and give him the lowdown.
Okay, back to Lodge...
"Screenwriter Scott Z. Burns (The Bourne Ultimatum) has reimagined Kurt Eichenwald's dense non-fiction thriller about a mid-1990s agribusiness price-fixing scandal as a rapid-fire corporate comedy of errors, like The Insider as filtered through the dry whimsy of Preston Sturges.
"It's a double or nothing strategy that merrily pays off, offering rich comic defends as the true-life nature of the material elevates its absurdity, but -- far more surprisingly -- not sacrificing the sense of consequence and complexity in the events at hand.
"Critically touching on both the antisocial nature of corporate American greed and the inefficiency of the government in curbing it, the film actually makes an elegant companion piece to its its festival compatriot, Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story.
"The perspective Soderbergh presents here, however, is a lot less judgmental or clear-cut than Moore's, thanks in no small part to the guiding presence of Matt Damon, whose subtle, malleable characterization here keeps framing and reframing the film's own ethical stance.
"Damon plays Mark Whitacre, a folksy, seemingly guileless Cornell grad and up-and-comer at agricultural behemoth ADM, with whose illegal price-fixing of food additive lysine he is complicit, until his aggrieved wife (an affecting Melanie Lynskey) urges him to turn whistleblower for the FBI.
"And so begins several years of eager -- if not particularly adept -- duplicity on Whitacre's part, but just as the FBI close in the company, Whitacre's personal web of business indiscretions begins to unravel.
"The brilliance of Damon's performance -- and, consequently, the pleasure of the film -- lies in the fact that Whitacre is by turn a lot smarter and a lot dumber than people take him for.
"We never quite gauge the reliability of his narration until the final reel; not unlike his otherwise wholly different turn in The Talented Mr. Ripley, he reveals the psychological cracks in the makeup of the American everyman so incrementally that you hardly notice until it's too late. Aided by a deadpan comic fluidity the actor has never controlled so comfortably, it's the finest work of his career.
"Soderbergh, meanwhile, matches Damon's playfulness by channelling the knockabout tone of socially aware 1970s comedies like The Candidate, right down to details like the lurid opening credits and a cheerfully antiquated score (his first for a feature in 13 years) from Marvin Hamlisch.
"The hyper-self-reflexive trappings can grow a claustrophobic over the course of an entire feature, and the storytelling lags a little at both ends -- this is a film that could have benefitted from clocking in at a crisp 90 minutes. But Burns' busy, persistently witty flow of dialogue (most amusing of all in the non-sequitur-laden stream-of-consciousness voiceover of Damon's inner thoughts) generally distracts us from such structural quibbles."
The short verdict, I suppose, is "wait for Toronto."
Thanks again to the good folks at Warner Bros. publicity who blocked me from seeing The Informant! at New York press screenings despite persistent pleadings. I was just trying to lighten my Toronto load and would have held all reactions until the first Toronto showings. Deeply appreciated, anything I can do in return, etc.
UPDATE: Todd McCarthy's just-up Variety review opens as follows: "The wacky little brother of Erin Brockovich, The Informant! goofs around lightheartedly while still doing some justice to the true-life story of a zealous but wildly delusional corporate whistle-blower.
"A larky outing for director Steven Soderbergh after the somber rigors of Che and The Girlfriend Experience, the pic showcases an excellent performance by a chubbed-out Matt Damon as a Midwestern executive who's so smart he's dumb.
"Amusingly eccentric rather than outright funny, this Warner Bros. release will have to rely mostly on Damon for its B.O., which looks to be modest."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on September 7, 2009 at 6:02 AM
comment #1
drbob
says ...
Same approach Kubrick took to Red Alert. Somehow, I don't think the payoff will be as great.
Posted by drbob
at September 7, 2009 7:28 AM
comment #2
Circumvrent
says ...
Very cool. Soderbergh's on a roll, as far as I'm concerned. He just cast a Mixed Martial Arts fighter for an action movie that he's directing and Lem Dobbs is writing, which is awesome.
Posted by Circumvrent
at September 7, 2009 8:07 AM
comment #3
buster keaton
says ...
You (and perhaps other movie bloggers) should have a sit-down with Warners publicists. As long as I can remember, they've always been the biggest pricks in the world, whether dealing with online writers, TV folks, or those in the dead tree media. They either ignore calls, stall until way past deadline, outright lie, or otherwise delude and deceive the press -- their shoddy behavior puts a black mark on all others in their trade. You would think that a "publicity department" would welcome the publicity which, in essence, is free advertising. But for some reason the arrogant jerks at WB seem to feel that everyone else in the world is beneath them. And forget about their approach to screenings -- odds are those screenings you begged to attend were maybe 1/2 to 3/4 filled at best. They'd rather have empty seats than let reporters see their movies. Thanks for letting me vent.
Posted by buster keaton
at September 7, 2009 8:10 AM
comment #4
Jeffrey Wells
says ...
Wells to Buster Keaton: Wow...thank you very much. Seriously -- great to read that.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells
at September 7, 2009 8:39 AM
comment #5
Travis Crabmeat
says ...
[One day after the final snark warning (i.e., "Son of Stalinist Purge"), Travis Crabmeat crossed the line and is now gone from Hollywood Elsewhere.]
Posted by Travis Crabmeat
at September 7, 2009 8:46 AM
comment #6
Travis Crabmeat
says ...
[One day after the final snark warning (i.e., "Son of Stalinist Purge"), Travis Crabmeat crossed the line and is now gone from Hollywood Elsewhere.]
Posted by Travis Crabmeat
at September 7, 2009 8:52 AM
comment #7
buster keaton
says ...
Remember, Warners was the studio that spent a fortune on "Watchmen" but dumped "Slumdog Millionaire" -- that sort of says it all.
Posted by buster keaton
at September 7, 2009 9:10 AM
comment #8
Harold Lloyd
says ...
Remember, Warners is the studio that won this summer, last summer, as well as last year and the year before that, and most likely this year, as well.
Warners is the most succesful studio of the decade. And their genius viral marketing campaign helped propel The Dark Knight to the second highest grossing domestic box office ever, right behind Titanic.
They are the best big studio marketers, bar none. Anyone who clad otherwise has an axe to grind. The numbers don't lie.
Posted by Harold Lloyd
at September 7, 2009 9:34 AM
comment #9
larry braverman
says ...
You should re-post your previous 'Close Enough' idea, but throw the above poster into the ring.
I honestly see more of a thematic connection between the Episode I advance teaser and Informant poster above than the Wild Things one sheet.
Posted by larry braverman
at September 7, 2009 9:42 AM
comment #10
Guy Lodge
says ...
Okay, so I don't write parking-lot reviews. I will endeavor.
(Though if someone approached me in a parking lot and asked me "Does 'The Informant!' work?," I'd probably spare him the frisky line and say, "Yeah." I'm not THAT unbearable.)
Thanks, as always, for reading and linking, Jeff.
Posted by Guy Lodge
at September 7, 2009 9:45 AM
comment #11
buster keaton
says ...
Harold Lloyd -- You probably subscribe to the bumper sticker theory that "He Who Dies With The Most Toys, Wins." My answer has always been "Wins what?"
Remember the immortal words: "For when the One Great Scorer comes to write against your name, He marks -- not that you won or lost -- but how you played the Game."
Posted by buster keaton
at September 7, 2009 10:04 AM
comment #12
Harold Lloyd
says ...
Great post, Mr. Keaton, and I'm a great admirer of your work. However, all you have done here is helped to prove my point.
Your comment about Warners passing on Slumdog has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of work done by Warners marketing and publicity.
Sure, Warners made a big mistake by letting it go. They lacked the foresight to see the big picture, and lost Best Picture and some hefty profits as a result. But your comment above mosses the point completely, and, as I said, does nothing but bolster my own.
Why do studios, both large and small, have marketing and publicity departments? So they can feel better about themselves getting as many butts in the seats, to enrich the lives of moviegoers to share I'm the communal joy of appreciating the "art" they have been working so hard to sell? Um...NO.
They exist for one purpose and purpose only--to male as much money as is humanly possible for each and every title.
How they chose to play the game directly effects the result. And by that standard, Warners is not only winning but also playing the game really quite well.
Posted by Harold Lloyd
at September 7, 2009 10:29 AM
comment #13
Harold Lloyd
says ...
The whole point of studio pictures is to make the most money as possible given whatever title they are trying to promote.
And since it is quite obvious that their lack of blogger love has not come close (by any grand stretch of the imagination) to hurting their bottomline, why should they care otherwise?
No offense, Buster, but it is hugely naive for u to think otherwise.
Do u really think they carenif they are hurting other peoples feelings? Don't they have enough on thief plate?
Really. Seriously. Give me a break.
Posted by Harold Lloyd
at September 7, 2009 10:35 AM
comment #14
Kristopher Tapley
says ...
Um, the Dark Knight viral campaign (implemented by 42 Entertainment, not WB) had little to nothing to do with the film's final box office take. That caught the attention of a small percentage of the film's audience. Most of it can be attributed to the rubberneck factor with Ledger and word of mouth, which "dripped" with praise. Not to mention multiple viewings (which is the only way you get to numbers like that).
Posted by Kristopher Tapley
at September 7, 2009 12:05 PM
comment #15
matt cousens
says ...
You're right on with the rubberneck factor, and multiple viewings. The viral campaign was only seen by fans who would have spent their money regardless, i feel.
Lloyd and Buster are both correct, they're just different arguments. Do the ends justify the means? In this case, maybe. But it isn't always good business.
Posted by matt cousens
at September 7, 2009 12:56 PM
comment #16
scooterzz
says ...
in comment #3, every single point that bk makes is absolutely valid and true...the sad thing is that their attitude is catching on...universal (west coast anyway) has become the same type of operation.....
Posted by scooterzz
at September 7, 2009 3:22 PM
comment #17
Natali Watson
says ...
Hello friends,this is a nice site and I wanted to post a note to let you know, good job! Thanks
Best regards, Natali, CEO of free music download
music online
Posted by Natali Watson
at June 24, 2011 5:43 AM