The film tells the story of Susan (Amy Adams), a wealthy socialite in Los Angeles. She's feeling unsatisfied with her life. Her husband (Armie Hammer) is barely trying to hide that he's sleeping around. They are running out of money and everyone in the community knows it. Then, out of the blue, she is sent a manuscript for a novel written by her ex-husband, Tony (Jake Gyllenhaal), who dedicates the story to her. The story, which is depicted in the film as Susan reads it, is a fictionalized account of a man (also played by Gyllenhaal) who is terrorized by some men in West Texas and looks to get revenge. It's a grisly tale. Susan doesn't know what to make of it being dedicated to her. She starts thinking back to the days when she and Tony were together and everything that has led her to where she is now.
The movie is full of a lot of great topics worth exploring. Ford clearly has a lot on his mind about the choices we make and where they lead. The film definitely got me thinking more than most do. The delivery is off though. It's like every conversation Amy Adams has is spoken in generalities or trying to make universal points. No one talks like people. For example, in a flashback, Susan talking to Tony about her family sounds like a description she read in a book somewhere, like she didn't actually know them. It's very nearly "show, don't tell" territory. I think there's some purpose to that. The scenes from Tony's story are much looser than the scenes with Susan in the "real world". That seems like a purposeful contrast, but the flashbacks in the real world are equally lifeless even though they are meant to reflect a freer time for Susan. So, I'm either missing something or this goes beyond a directorial choice.
This would be a good time to point out that there is a difference between character nuance and performance nuance. Amy Adams is doing good work throughout the film. Even the best actress can't make bad dialogue good though. The most she can do is find a way to make it work, which is what she does. On the page, her character isn't nearly as interesting as she makes her. Everyone else in the real world is too one-note to matter. Actors like Armie Hammer, Michael Sheen, and Laura Linney only get a scene or two to make an impression. The fictional world is carried by the trio of Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon, and Aaron-Taylor Johnson. Gyllenhaal is mostly reactive to the other two and does well with it. Shannon has fun hamming it up as a detective working with Gyllenhaal, almost like he's doing an impression of a Jeff Bridges character from True Grit or Hell or High Water. Taylor-Johnson lives it up as a scumbag and has a wonderful scene on a toilet (and that's all I'll say).
Thankfully, the film looks every bit as pretty as you'd expect from Tom Ford. Between the beautiful photography and Adams' non-spoken performance, I started to wonder if he could've just dropped all the dialogue from the real-world scenes altogether. I wouldn't've minded that. The opening credits are mesmerizing. I wanted to look away but couldn't.
I was looking forward to this movie a lot. Ford impressed me with A Single Man. The premise of Nocturnal Animals is intriguing. Films that are about telling a story are like catnip for me (Stranger Than Fiction, The Princess Bridge, even Alex and Emma). Amy Adams and Jake Gyllenhaal are two of my favorite working actors too. I'm still holding out hope that maybe the movie is just smarter than me and I'll figure it out in time. For now, I'll settle on this being a pretty disappointment with actors I like doing the best they could.
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
No comments:
Post a Comment