View Full Version: RIGHT AT YOUR DOOR

Mobius > Arthouse, World & Hollywood Cinema > RIGHT AT YOUR DOOR



Title: RIGHT AT YOUR DOOR
Description: Inspired by Arbogast on Film Review


Lenny Moore - February 21, 2008 07:16 AM (GMT)
To all for whom it might be of interest, please check out this incisive review of a film I've been meaning to write something up on since something like two Saturdays ago. Alas, the mysterious Arbogast on Film got there first:

http://arbogastonfilm.blogspot.com/2008/02...till-alive.html

My wife, who had to visit her mother to take care of some business, nevertheless found herself unable to pull away from the drama unfolding on the screen. Indeed, we began to discuss the wisdom of immediately stocking as many items as possible, canned goods, batteries, matches, bottled water, candles, etc., in the event that the ficition we were watching someday became fact.

Next came the potential minefield of conversation about whether we would let one another in the house under similar circumstances. My take was that we could die together or die alone. If I'm in the house, of course I'd let my wife or mother or son in and hope for the best. Were an infant present, that might lead me to keep my distance. Pretty heady stuff for a pretty peaceful Saturday afternoon.

One intriguing aspect of the film dealt with the profoundly flawed information being conveyed over the only source of consistent communication: the radio. Should one trust the media, or civil authorities to accurately convey the facts as they exist, or should we do what so many in the World Trade Centers, in hindsight, should have done: ignore the official line and try to evacuate posthaste.

Putting aside the unforeseen reactions to the film and looking at the drama itself, the relationship between the husband and wife was slightly off from the start. It was clear that he was an out-of-work musician and she was rather uneasily carrying the financial burdens. A morning moment lounging in bed suggested by way of the wife shrugging him off that potential lovemaking would not be appreciated. To compensate, apparently, for his lack of contributing, he offered to get her coffee, cook, etc. Something certainly seemed amiss, however subtly, in their interactions with each other.

By the time the wife has returned home in the aftermath of the terrorist attack, she's incredulous that he wouldn't let her in. As Arbogast pointed out, and my wife and I hadn't considered, it's ironic that he's holed up "safe" inside with a stranger, the local handyman, and she, the home's owner, can't get the love of an opened door. At this point, the emotions, which I can understand would be getting hot and raw, remain somewhat stilted and lukewarm, as if the actors were either unwilling or unable to quite take things where they needed to go in their portrayals; kind of like Brad Pitt during his penultimate scene in SEVEN, only elongated.

I remember a few years back when we had a blackout here in the city. People were driving like mad down places like Sunrise highway in the vicinity of the Green Acres shopping mall to get home. There's no doubt that in times of crisis, the hat of reason gets tossed into the ring of "everyone for themselves" for a good number of people. Keeping a cool head allowed me to guide my vehicle home without too much drama, but the stitches in the side of civilization got streched that day.

So, accuracy of emotions aside, the film does settle into a mode where the psychological creep factor inexorably pushes the narrative forward. Every shadowy figure, every foray around the grounds of the house seems pregnant with the possibility of sudden tragedy. To the films credit, we mostly get scenes like the one in which the wife, sitting outside because it's cooler, talks to her husband about how she had doubts about marrying him. He responds that he never had any doubts. This is a fascinating exchange because at the point where Lexi, the wife, arrived home, became frustrated about not being let in and throws a cell phone through a window, clearly, in my view, was drawing on the hidden well of those doubts in that moment, making her actions even more understandable, in a way.

There's also a scene later on when a co-worker of Lexi comes by the house and offers to take her and the little boy somewhere to receive medical attention. The husband is clearly threatened by him, even trying to remind her that she said she couldn't stand him. Whether true or not, there's the implication that the husband believes his wife may have had an affair at some point. It could be this guy, or maybe someone else, but more than plastic and duct tape separates these two, even if on an unconscious level. In a sense, the crisis these two face together unearths a great many things unsaid and could lead to some reconciliation and deeper understanding, if they can survive it. And accordingto the radio transmissions, that's a really big if for Lexi.

As with Arbogast on Film, I was quite suprised to read various reviews of the film that did not seem to appreciate what the film tried to accomplish. Personally, I think films of this sort sometimes hit too close to home emtionally (my wife, for example, a social worker, is none too eager to see GONE BABY GONE). Asking the question of what one might do opens a Pandora's Box that, as Argogast says, may reveal the fault lines inherent in many contemporary relationships; relationships that are frequently as deep as a puddle of fly piss and about as refreshing.

For everyone else, this is a low-budget, little-film-that-could which will inspire healthy conversation and, yes, even thought in one's quiet moments.

JEFFREY ALLEN RYDELL - February 21, 2008 07:58 AM (GMT)
Haven't seen the film yet, but the 'dirty bombs' are nuclear, right? I was just watching some scientist types in a documentary say that the scattered dispersal of the radioactive elements in such a detonation would pretty much render contamination a non-issue, or at least very limited to those more or less right on top of the 'ground zero'. Not to begrudge the movie its premise, but to maybe help with your post-movie concerns...

Oh, and don't make me defend Pitt in SE7EN again - I'll do it, mister! ;)

Jeff McKay - February 21, 2008 01:12 PM (GMT)
I just watched this last night from netflix and thought it was terrible. I knew I was in trouble during the first few minutes with the seriously annoying overuse of the shaky-cam technique, and it just got worse from there. This technique to somehow create 'realism' is really getting old and distracting, especially when it's not part of the film like CLOVERFIELD or DIARY OF THE DEAD.

The film may make people think about what they would personally do during such a catastrophe so at least it has that to offer. I just found the drama at hand to be pretty dull and unconvincing - and very shaky, of course. I also found Rory Cochrane's performance to be one-note all the way through, and almost laughable in some of the early scenes. It takes him three minutes before he plugs in a tv after he hears the first reports. Wouldn't that be the first thing most of us would do? Oh, he's a bohemian musician kind of Echo Park guy. Oh, now I get it.

I think it's more interesting to read blogs and discussions about this film than watching the film itself. There's a good movie to be made about such an event, but this isn't it.

Lenny Moore - February 21, 2008 01:34 PM (GMT)
Jeff:

Normally, I find the use of hand held camerawork being done by epileptics off their seizure medication to be every bit as troublesome as you. In this instance and within the context of the subject matter, it seemed appropriate for RIGHT AT YOUR DOOR. I would agree that the middle section of the film does go a little flaccid, with the male lead's performance weighing the drama down to some extent (though I have issues with both leads as stated in my original post). As for your concern about the husband not plugging the television in immediately, before his wife left for work, they discuss the fact that cable is not yet hooked up.

Jeffrey:

The radio reports in the film are all over the place as to what the nature of the dirty bombs are. If I recall correctly, the latest reports (as well as comments by the military authorities they encounter) suggest biological agents of some kind.

As per Brad Pitt in SEVEN (a film I love, by the way):

Go ahead, make my day, my man! :)

Patrick Lefcourt - February 21, 2008 02:11 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Jeff McKay @ Feb 21 2008, 01:12 PM)
This technique to somehow create 'realism' is really getting old and distracting

I agree. Not just the shaky cam either -- I love it when they zoom in and out for no reason other than to call attention to the fact that they saw it done in a D.A. Pennebaker movie in film school. News flash, students: in cinema verite it's done so the camera man can find the focus point. On NYPD BLUE it's just jerking off.

Richard Harland Smith - February 21, 2008 03:37 PM (GMT)
Hey, while we're at the Bitchin' Fence, anybody else totally over seeing movie characters eating food? It's like, I get it, they're alive, we all know how it works, food passes from the cardiac sphincter into the stomach and down into the duodenum through the pyloric sphincter, okay, now get on with the story!

JEFFREY ALLEN RYDELL - February 21, 2008 04:10 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Richard Harland Smith @ Feb 21 2008, 10:37 AM)
Hey, while we're at the Bitchin' Fence, anybody else totally over seeing movie characters eating food? It's like, I get it, they're alive, we all know how it works, food passes from the cardiac sphincter into the stomach and down into the duodenum through the pyloric sphincter, okay, now get on with the story!

And what's with all the under-six foot midgets?! ;)

Brian Camp - February 21, 2008 04:41 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Richard Harland Smith @ Feb 21 2008, 09:37 AM)
Hey, while we're at the Bitchin' Fence, anybody else totally over seeing movie characters eating food?  It's like, I get it, they're alive, we all know how it works, food passes from the cardiac sphincter into the stomach and down into the duodenum through the pyloric sphincter, okay, now get on with the story!


Hey, I like when characters eat onscreen! Nothing bothers me more than action movies, like Stallone's CLIFFHANGER, to name one, where the characters run for miles, fight for hours, climb mountains in the freezing cold (with just a sweater on), dive into lakes and such, without even so much as a bowl of soup or a candy bar for sustenance. What I loved about TWISTER (1996) is that the entire crew sat down for a big meal, steak and eggs, right in the middle of the movie and then took a nap! So, when they went out chasing tornadoes again they were well fed and well rested. Hooray!

This is one reason I like Shaw Bros. kung fu movies so much. They're always stopping to eat in roadside restaurants and ordering plates of meats, vegetables and noodles. But of course, some miscreant wanders in and slams his sword on the table and starts a fight, invariably knocking over all that delicious-looking food. Everytime a thug walks into the place, I yell at the hero, "Eat first!" (This all dates back to childhood issues from living in a big family, but that's another story. :huh:)

They also eat a lot in anime and on J-pop TV shows: "Itadakimasu!"

JEFFREY ALLEN RYDELL - February 21, 2008 04:44 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Lenny Moore @ Feb 21 2008, 08:34 AM)
As per Brad Pitt in SEVEN (a film I love, by the way):

Go ahead, make my day, my man!  :)

Assuming you were referring to Pitt's 'big scene' at the climax, and not the entirety of his performance.

Adapted from an earlier response to Mr. Gutowski:

QUOTE
I think Pitt gets a bad rap for his admittedly strenuous emoting at the end of SE7EN.

**Spoilers**

Pitt's playing a shallow, over-confident near-brute whose whole view of the world has just been raped. In an instant. And we watched it happen.

He keeps trying to regain control, to get back on top of the situation, but can't, and his very instinct for psychic self-preservation - to be the hero cop - is being thrown in his face along with his wife's head. He's convulsively grieving for her, consumed with rage towards the taunting killer down the barrel from his gun - heywhatsthisinmyhand? - and finally getting what Somerset's been trying to tell him all along. He can't win. Oh, and his wife was pregnant - and didn't tell him. From abject confusion, moving to utter disbelief, then anger and loss (with a dash of seeming betrayal at the apparent collusion of his wife and his partner thrown in), finally left facing a moral test that he'd be absolutely ill-equipped to handle on his best day. All inside of 2 minutes of screentime.

How does one go about playing that? Pitt's choice is to visibly rapid-fire shuffle through emotional responses, trying to find one that 'fits', finally shutting them all down to become the clockwork agent of Doe's destruction. The last we see of David Mills, he's basically a spent bullet casing.

JEFFREY ALLEN RYDELL - February 21, 2008 04:45 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Brian Camp @ Feb 21 2008, 11:41 AM)
What I loved about TWISTER...

Firster words were never written... ;)

Lenny Moore - February 21, 2008 05:54 PM (GMT)
Jeffrey:

Part of my ambivalence about Brad Pitt’s performance stemmed from his character, Mills, being described in the trailer for the film as “…a brilliant young detective…” and finding Mills to be nothing of the sort. Passionate and stubborn, yes, but not brilliant. As a result, my reaction to his penultimate scene was that it felt self-conscious and forced. As time has passed and my strong positive reaction to the film overall remains unabated, I’ve come to appreciate what Pitt does in that scene a bit more on the occasions I’ve re-viewed it.

I think you accurately assess what he was reaching for. What’s inevitable, however, is that each individual viewer will process the actor’s range of emotional expression through the filter of their own perception of how they would react in such a circumstance. That is certainly what I did, visualizing myself spontaneously combusting into a mile high mushroom cloud at the very thought of finding myself at the nexus of so diabolical a moment. Hence, my feeling that Pitt didn’t bring it with the resoluteness and determination to wring every ounce of his eternal soul dry, if need be, to satisfy my requirements for the successful completion of that pivotal scene. Mr. Pitt will, undoubtedly, be pleased to hear that I no longer hold it against him.

I’ve asked myself, as in the case of the husband (Rory Cochrane) in RIGHT AT YOUR DOOR, what sort of place would the actor really have to take himself to express in realistic fashion the wildly fluctuating and intense range of emotions someone would undoubtedly feel in real-life? Is it fair to expect someone to do that? RIGHT AT YOUR DOOR does lose something essential in the telling as a result of the leads remaining “grounded” when a more frantic emotional “lift off” is what the script and the situation seem to call for. But I’m not paying anyone’s psychiatric bills, either.

JEFFREY ALLEN RYDELL - February 21, 2008 06:23 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Lenny Moore @ Feb 21 2008, 12:54 PM)
Part of my ambivalence about Brad Pitt’s performance stemmed from his character, Mills, being described in the trailer for the film as “…a brilliant young detective…” and finding Mills to be nothing of the sort. Passionate and stubborn, yes, but not brilliant. As a result, my reaction to his penultimate scene was that it felt self-conscious and forced.

Hmm, not the standard theatrical trailer. Maybe a TV spot?

Lenny Moore - February 21, 2008 06:32 PM (GMT)
Jeffrey:

My initial viewing of SEVEN came from the CAV laserdisc set of the film, on which there were multiple spots. I also have it on DVD, which I think has many, if not all, of the same supplemental materials. It was my habit at the time to scan the supplemental materials before getting into the film, and I remember that line in the trailer distinctly.

The differences between the two detectives was really driven home when Mills receives some written materials while he's sitting in a car and gets frustrated at his lack of recognition of the authors, including the Marquis de Sade ("Shar-day"). That scene was in constrast to Somerset's nocturnal library visit, scouring the shelves for reference material to the strain's of classical music.

Dave Garrett - February 21, 2008 11:22 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Brian Camp @ Feb 21 2008, 10:41 AM)

Hey, I like when characters eat onscreen! Nothing bothers me more than action movies, like Stallone's CLIFFHANGER, to name one, where the characters run for miles, fight for hours, climb mountains in the freezing cold (with just a sweater on), dive into lakes and such, without even so much as a bowl of soup or a candy bar for sustenance. What I loved about TWISTER (1996) is that the entire crew sat down for a big meal, steak and eggs, right in the middle of the movie and then took a nap! So, when they went out chasing tornadoes again they were well fed and well rested. Hooray!

This is one reason I like Shaw Bros. kung fu movies so much. They're always stopping to eat in roadside restaurants and ordering plates of meats, vegetables and noodles. But of course, some miscreant wanders in and slams his sword on the table and starts a fight, invariably knocking over all that delicious-looking food.

One eating scene that really stuck with me was Kurt Russell chowing down on that plate of nachos at the bar in DEATH PROOF. It practically oozed carnality (not to mention Velveeta).




Hosted for free by InvisionFree