(The math is somewhat key to this formula. The excessive violence of both movies is cancelled out by the division, but the contained space and proper attire of each remains)
There’s an important distinction between one of my favorite types of movies and a type that can bother me. I’ll sometimes complain about movies adapted from plays that should’ve just been plays. There isn’t anything added to them by being on film. However, I tend to love when movies limit themselves to a confined space, which is often what play adaptations do. So, why does Fences annoy me but I love Free Fire? It mostly comes down to how cinematic the films are. Free Fire can’t be a play in the same form. Locke is just Tom Hardy in a car, but the reason so much of it works is the direction and his small actions in the car. It wouldn’t translate as a stage production*. This is important because The Outfit epitomizes this duality of preferences. It is a film the takes place within three rooms. People move in and out of it like a play. I actually still have trouble believing this isn’t an adaptation of a play. There are key aspects of blocking and detail that do make it specifically cinematic.
*All this doesn’t explain why I love 12 Angry Men and Glengarry Glen Ross. Maybe I just love watching middle-aged white guys argue in a room.
This Outfit takes place in a suit maker’s shop in 1956 Chicago. The cutter (not to be confused with a mere tailor) named Leonard (Mark Rylance) is happy with his simple existence making suits from early in the morning until late into the night. He has accepted his shop being used as a drop spot for the local mob, but he stays out of it entirely. The less he knows, the safer he is. The majority of the film takes place over one long night. After an ambush from a rival gang, a pair of gangsters interrupt Leonard late at night to help with a gunshot wound and to hide some valuable cargo. Over the next several hours, people walk in and out of the shop revealing secrets and suspicions until things all come to a head. I’ll spare you the details, since that’s some of the fun, but most of it centers around a greater crime syndicate known as the Outfit who loom over all the local crime factions.
The simplicity of the execution (linearly told, only in the three rooms) leaves a lot of room for the performances and writing. Rylance is the definition of sturdy in this. The whole time I could tell there’s more to him than he’s letting on, but he doesn’t give anything away before he means to. I’m always happy to see Zoey Deutch show up in something. This time, she’s Leonard’s secretary who dreams of something bigger than the neighborhood she’s lived in her whole life. She doesn’t 100% fit in a 1950s setting. Otherwise, she’s really good for the role. She’s sweet but also self-possessed. Simon Russell Beale is good as a local crime boss. Dylan O’Brien is solid as the boss’ son who is more ambitious than he is competent. And I liked Johnny Flynn as one of Beale’s lieutenants trying to leverage any advantage he can get. The film is a healthy mix of monologue and tense standoffs. I loved tracking the ways that Leonard found to get through the night. I appreciate the twists in the movie. It’s obvious within the first few minutes that this is the kind of movie that will have a few reveals. Most are pretty clever. A couple I still need to untangle, but I trust that they all make sense. There’s one bonkers development late that even still isn’t a huge surprise. I had a great time just going along for the ride.
The Outfit is an exercise in limitations, so it’s not the kind of film I expect people to peg as a top movie of the year. Rather, it’s the kind that they’ll remember as being pretty good but somehow lacking. I’ll probably do that too. It’s a film that lacks some ambition but pulls off what it aims to do incredibly well.
Verdict: Strongly Recommend
No comments:
Post a Comment