On Friday, Emma and I saw Kiss Kiss Bang Bang:
Emma: OK: we were lured to the movie theatre with the promise of a kiss between Val Kilmer and Robert Downey Jr. Were our hopes met?
Lauren: The kiss was not that sexy.
Emma: No! Because it wasn't a real kiss, it was a "quick, it's the cops, lets pretend to be kissing."
Lauren: But the movie crackled with an intensity that was unexpected, and there was an intriguing frisson of sexual tension that I enjoyed.
Emma: It was intense and engaging in many ways. Irritating in others.
I found myself overloaded, with different parts of my brain being asked to participate at the same time. D'you know what I mean?
Lauren: Yes - the film-within-a-film concept was a bit overwhelming, especially when Robert Downey, Jr.'s character would jump in with a voiceover out of nowhere, and go, "hold on, rewind!"
Emma: Right. It was fun, that device, but as you say another element in a film that already felt thematically very crowded.
Lauren: It was a very "boyish" film. Everything was cute in a too-clever way that men can get away with, especially men who make films for a living in Hollywood.
Emma: Yes. There was even - dare I say it - some spiritual resemblance to Wedding Crashers.
Lauren: Yeah - kind of! Like it's funny that the film keeps unraveling.
Yet like Weezer, the film dares you to destroy its sweater by pointing out all of its many defects.
Emma: Yes! It's this knowing nod to the audience: "We know you're already too smart to suspend your disbelief! Let's all play together!"
Lauren: Did you feel like the homage to Film Noir was supposed to be ironic?
Emma: I did, yes. Ironic but also admiring of the genre.
Lauren: So very Los Angeles…
Lauren: The "SEXY FEMALE LEAD" (played by Michelle Monaghan) gave me hives.
Emma: The sexy female lead was fucking annoying.
Lauren: What did you think of how often she was half-naked? It was a real leitmotif of the film.
Emma: Well, again, it's the breaking all the rules/ironic homage approach that theoretically lets you get away with what otherwise might be seen as gratuitous. I found it ridiculous that she was supposed to be the same age as Robert Downey Jr's character. There were about fifteen years between them.
Lauren: Oh yes. Easily. What did you think of Val Kilmer's character? I thought his performance made the film worth watching.
Emma: Yes, I really liked it, actually. It was a surprisingly understated performance from Kilmer: He's obviously got to a point in his career where he's shown off his ridiculously monumental talents so many times, in so many ways, that he doesn't feel the need to prove anything. As such this character, a mildly sardonic gay PI, was a delight.
Lauren: An absolute delight. The casting was quite good overall, actually.
Emma: Yes. Downey Jr was fabulous. Without those two in the roles, I'm not sure the film would've worked.
Lauren: Both seemed at the top of their game.
Emma: Exactly. Their stature and skill just carried it.
Lauren: But I wasn't crazy about the actress. It's like - did Alicia Silverstone turn it down?
Emma: I know. I wasn't crazy about her either, but it was more her lines and the way she was directed than the actress's performance. She wasn't bad, not great, but not bad.
Lauren: Maybe she is the director's girlfriend? She mystified me. Just so-so in a role that an actress with a more dynamic presence could have owned.
Emma: You're right, but the part itself was so limited and clichéd. Certainly, a better actress could have done more with it, but really, what did the character do other than play into the crazy=sexy stereotype?
Lauren: I enjoyed many of the in-jokes, such as when Perry informs Harry that he is not an unwitting aspiring actor per se, but rather leverage for the producer's negotiations with Colin Farrell, who "wants too much money." That aspect seemed to have a very authentic feel for the vagaries of Hollywood.
Emma: Me too! All that stuff was great. I also really enjoyed the complexity of Downey Jr's character. I completely believed in his reckless, haplessly get into disastrous trouble every five minutes while still being totally lovable schtick...
Lauren: Yes. Absolutely. It was an intriguing film -- annoying slapped together in some regards, but awfully funny in others.
Emma: Let me ask you something: did you have a kind of cognitive dissonance watching it? I found myself struggling to work out the complex whodunit plot twists while simultaneously being amused by the actor's performances, and it was slightly odd and tiresome.
Lauren: Yes - especially since the film expects the viewer to propel it with his or her faith - sort of like Santa Claus, magically traveling around the world and stopping at every house in a single night - without every questioning it, while simultaneously raising myriad complicated, convoluted questions. Rather tiresome, yes.
Emma: That's an excellent analogy! There was also something a bit off about the pacing. I understand that in its spoof of the noir thriller genre it was deliberately emphasizing the convoluted crazy plot, but time passed in a very jarring way.
Lauren: Yes - and the chapters, as though it were a novel? An unnecessary layer.
Emma: I was just going to ask, in fact, what you thought of the strand of the plot involving those novels, life imitating art, as it were. Again, I kind of admired it but it definitely felt squeezed in.
Lauren: I loved that. Films hardly ever feature books in an interesting way. I like to hear sex, intrigue, & storytelling in the same breath.
Emma: You're right, of course. I liked the way the real events followed the inexorable trajectory found in the novels, but I found the way the characters were actually linked through the existence of the novels a bit of a stretch. Or, an additional confusion.
Lauren: True. The plot could have been much cleaner. It would have made for a better film, because many elements are stunningly original and refreshing.
Emma: I completely agree. It seemed very clever, not a reaction one often has to a Hollywood film.
Lauren: Especially one set in Los Angeles!
Emma: Totally.
Lauren: I found the incest storyline very creepy.
Emma: Did you? Creepy bad or creepy good?
Lauren: The role of women in this film was just so depressingly pathetic and lamentable.
Emma: Oh, it's so true. Corpses or sexbombs.
Lauren: If they weren't getting groped by their fathers, they were running around half naked helping a male character commit a crime. But your assessment is more succinct.
Emma: No, you’re right. It's kind of inexcusable.
Lauren: At least there was a principal gay character. Even though Gay Perry was a punchline, Val Kilmer played him in a v. classy way.
Emma: He was wonderful. Has Val ever won an Oscar? Not that I'm saying it’s a possibility for this. Just that he's truly one of our finest actors.
Lauren: He is so underrated. His guest starring role on Entourage as a hippie pot dealer was sublime.
Emma: Oh my God, I forgot about that! He was unbelievable. I'm not sure there's anyone more versatile.
Lauren: He and Robert Downey Jr really did make Kiss Kiss Bang Bang a gem, albeit one notably rough around the edges.
Emma: Indeed. This is going to be a difficult movie to designate the correct number of peonies to!
Lauren: Yes, especially since we don't do halves.
Emma: I'm torn between three and four. Three for all the annoying aspects we've highlighted, four because the two lead actors were stunning in a way you so rarely see.
Lauren: I will concur. When it came together, it was quite a film.
Emma: So four?
Lauren: Four it is.
Le Cineclub Rating:
(four out of a possible five peonies)
Previously: Nine Lives, Dandelion, Going Shopping, Green Street Hooligans.
Comments