by Allan Fish
(USA/UK 2004 101m) DVD1/2
Hello, stranger
p Cary Brokaw, Mike Nichols, Scott Rudin, John Calley d Mike Nichols w Patrick Marber play Patrick Marber ph Stephen Goldblatt ed John Bloom, Antonia Van Drimmelen m Stephen Patrick Morrissey art Tim Hatley cos Ann Roth
Julia Roberts (Anna), Jude Law (Dan), Natalie Portman (Alice Ayres/Jane Jones), Clive Owen (Larry),
‘Can’t Take My Eyes off You’ goes the song over the opening sequence. How apt, for here’s a film that truly does, as the title suggests, demand that you look closer, under the skin, to what lies beneath. Four characters who, on the outside, seem to have it all – youth, beauty, intelligence – and yet who are doomed to love, hurt and destroy one another through the space of the four years in which the film takes place.
Walking down a London street one day, Dan, an obits writer for a national newspaper, catches the eye of a young American girl, Alice, as she walks in the opposite direction. When she gets run over by a taxi because she looked the wrong way – not used to British traffic coming from the opposite direction – he takes her to hospital and falls in love with her that afternoon. Some months later, Dan is in a photographic studio, that of another American, Anna, who has just separated. He falls in love with her, and Alice soon guesses. One night Dan is messing around on an internet sex chat room pretending to be a nympho called Anna, and catches the attention of a doctor called Larry. Dan tricks Larry into going to the aquarium to meet this Anna, because he knows American Anna likes going there…
Mike Nichols took huge steps forward in cinematic permissiveness when he made Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Carnal Knowledge, and they, too, centred around only four principal characters, and very unlovely characters at that. All of which does rather make one wonder why Closer received such criticism for its coldness, for it was no more cold than the earlier works. It wasn’t helped by the anticipation the film built up among horny teens because of Natalie Portman’s nude scenes – which Nichols thankfully cut as they would have been unnecessary – and by the fact that the language was, undeniably, easily the most sexually explicit ever seen in a mainstream Hollywood film. Still, it seems, we have hang-ups about using the ‘f’, ‘c’ and ‘t’ words, or maybe that we just don’t like Roberts and Portman using them. Either way, it alienated many, and unjustly so, for it is in these most explicit, intimate moments of honesty that the film really does go to unseen depths of despair. It’s like watching four people keep pulling their own skin off until the raw flesh is exposed. The dialogue stings, but it’s meant to.
As it concentrates on the sweet meetings and bitter partings, it misses all of what would be central to a romantic film. This isn’t about romance, it isn’t even about sex – or at least it isn’t just about that – it’s about baring your soul, raw emotion and dealing with the pain of rejection. Nichols opens out Marber’s play with supreme delicacy, and his use of music is inspired, from having Law and Roberts eye each other up to Mozart’s ‘Cosi Fan Tutte’ to the genius of having Law and Owen’s internet chat played out to Rossini’s ‘Cinderella’, a composer whose overtures build up to truly orgasmic crescendos.
Final words, however, to the cast. Roberts’ Anna may be the coldest of the quartet, yet she carries the most baggage, and is the most guarded about opening up; it’s her bravest and best work by far, while Law is equally impressive as the ingratiating and somewhat childish Dan. Owen – who played Dan on stage – is fantastic as Larry, and gets many of the best lines; his scene with Roberts, getting her to confess how she liked sex with Law is unforgettable. And Portman is arguably best of all, as the character who could be seen as a victim but who, in the end, is the most astute and confident of them all, as well as having the most convincing façade. Here’s a stripper who bared not just her body but her soul, and was all the more raw and attractive for it. One wouldn’t call it what Alice called her holiest of holies, but it’s transcendent for all that.
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
I must admit, although I admired certain aspects of this film, I wasn’t won over by it as you were. That said, I found Natalie Portman and Jude Law nothing less than superb. The heartache behind the “coldness” is palpable. With Roberts and Owen, it seems their characters are just too far gone to be reached. I would not mind revisiting this film, however, as I suspect it probably plays better a second time. Thinking about it more in line with Nichols’ Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? would probably behoove one’s viewing dramatically.
Yep, Alexander, I know where you are coming from. Allan and I are not on the same page with this film. I found the entire thing tedious and static.
Still, Allan’s review is excellent as always.
As I always say, though, Sammy, old boy, you have the right to your opinion and I have my right to be right!
I loved it JUST as much as you seem to have, I thought it was absolutely great, the acting and writing electrifying and I consider it easily one of the best films of its year. If not the best.
….I agree with Mr. Plowman (and with Allan Fish) on this one. This was a cerebral and hypnotizing experience. I did love the performances of Mr. Law and Ms. Portman. Great review.
Heh Sam I liked this one too! Whats sa matter?
Closer is one of my favorite films. I definitely think it’s underrated, though I know plenty of people who feel it is overrated. Either way, the sharpness of the dialogue, the intimacy of the direction, and the incredible four key performances — especially Clive Owen and Natalie Portman (Portman, I think, is the stand-out, mainly because her character is the most complex in the film and she absolutely nails it) — make this film special.
Couldn’t agree more, k. One of the most underrated films of the 00s, partly because it sums up the emtional apathy at the centre of modern urban life. It’s literally like watching emotional puss ooze out for two hours.
I am very sorry I have to disagree with you Sam, but all the people above (K, Nick, Carol and Mr. Fish and Alex) are right in my view. This was not an easy film to sit through, but in the end you feel you really couldn’t have probed people deeper than this. I loved Natalie Portman.
Haha, that is the perfect description of the film, Allan.
Yes, but perhaps as discomforting as the film itself. Thanks, k.
I didn’t love this film, but I didn’t hate it either. But the acting was strong.
Why Nat Portman didn’t actually win the Oscar is beyond me. It was, quite possibly, her best performance of her life. Ugh.
You can add me to the list of fans for this film. I do concur with you, Nick Plowman. Ms. Portman deserved the Oscar. Sorry it didn’t work for you Sam.
Yes, she did deserve the Oscar, but Oscar always gives it to impersonation over performance. Look at the best actor winners of the last five or six years and how many were playing real people…nuff said.
I wasn’t sure what to make of this film. It was hard to sit through, but yet it made some trenchant observations. I should see it again. Anyway, excellent review.
This isn’t exactly “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” nor “Carnal Knowedge.” And it isn’t “The Graduate” either. But I concur that it is an important and challenging film, and you are a bit too premature there Sam to dismiss it. Of course, you are not the only one who didn’t care for it.
I liked this film even better when I saw it on DVD, but I remember opposing Sam after seeing it in the movie theatre.
I agree with what has been added here — I would have given both Owen and Portman the Oscars that year.
Indeed, k. Indeed.
I’m with the yay-sayers, very strong motion picture!
Thanks, David, all yay-sayers welcome.
Eh. It was okay, but Nichols’ best work from this decade– maybe his career– was “Angels in America”. Maybe it’s just that Kushner’s epic “Gay Fantasia on National Themes” is simply a source material of far stronger stuff than Marber’s been-there-done-that affair (literally) of modern romance, but the director was smoking hot there, whereas here there’s smolder and cinder, but not much more. Don’t get me wrong, “Closer” isn’t a bad film, it’s just not all that interesting when you get past the sex-sells alure.
Why do we all mention what should/shouldn’t win an Oscar? I find nothing more worthless than giving out awards when it comes to art. Those golden statues are completely meaningless. Film isn’t like sports. There can never really be a true winner.
Oh I agree, Maurizio, but I can’t resists kicking the boot into the academy any chance I get.
WHOA! BRAVO! One of the most surprizing and welcomed choices in the count so far. Just when you think Nichol’s has grown to old and readied himself to go out to pasture, here comes his most blistering work in decades. I ABSOLUTELY LOVED THIS FILM. Breaking the three walls of the stage and airing the play out only LENT a feeling of immediacy and present-day truth to the whole thing. No staginess here. The cast is inspired (I agree with Allan that Roberts has never shown this kind of talent or range before or after) and Natalie Portman, in a really mature turn, rips apart her competitors in one of the rawest, sexy and informed turns this decade. SHE WAS ROBBED OF THAT OSCAR. Along with his ANGELS IN AMERICA, Nichols proved that he could age like fine wine and still tap into a vibe as contemporary as this. The fusion of his knowledge and today’s sexual/youth sensibilities is right on target. GREAT FILM!
NO, its NOT VIRGINIA WOOLF, THE GRADUATE or CARNAL KNOWLEDGE (his MOST underrated film). The fact is that Nichols changes with the times. His films in the 60’s are products of the time, but their meaning and metaphor transcend the period they’re depicting. His SILKWOOD (1980’s) commented, brilliantly, on an issue that was ripe of that time and, again, transcended it. Here, he brings his tried and true values of film-making and merges it with what’s hot in this decade. Sam and I have argued over Nichols clout. Sam dismisses him as a good director, of his time. I say Nichol’s is one of the greats who, like a chameleon, changes his striping and colors with every film he makes. Its this combination of time-worn professionalism and a contemporary opened mind that makes him formiddable almost every time he moves to the center of the canvas and off the ropes. I would NEVER take this guy for granted. Again, look at this film and ANGELS IN AMERICA (I pray Allan has this one on the count) and the proof shines through.
Er, no, Dennis,. I found Angels in America a bit of a self-congratulating hodge podge, and hellishly smug. Sure, it kicked shite like Philadelphia into touch and the acting was generally OK (though Streep was on autopilot and Thompson so out of place it wasn’t true, Jeff Wright and Mary Louis Parker were the best things in it), but it was still far too theatrical an experience. Easily the most overrated HBO piece of the decade.
Justin Kirk was greatly underrated in his performance as Prior Walter. I remain impressed by the degree to which Nichols was able to make the mini-series of “Angels” as cinematic as it was– just read the original script sometime and you’ll see just how much more theatrical it could have been. Kushner’s play uses the stage in ways that are unprecedented in terms of dramatic presentation and stylistic ingenuity, and the fact that Nichols was willing to sacrifice so much of those wunderkind moments in its transition to the screen is commendable (on-stage, you can get away with scenes occuring at the same time; in movies, we have the montage and cross-cutting). Furthermore, there were moments that he found as director that amplified the content of Kushner’s script in ways that only add to the experience– that sunlight that blinds Belize in the cemetary where Prior gives a final “Fuck God” sermon, bathed in a lens-flare halo after the divinely over-the-top drag-queen funeral still gives me chills.
As for HBO’s smug programming– very true, but for me, the worst offender is “Band of Brothers”, a show which was too weighed down with its self-satisfied gravitas and never really gave us anything we hadn’t already seen in countless WWII movies before. Besides that, I couldn’t stand “Six Feet Under” (maybe it would’ve been better off on a network or basic-cable, where it wouldn’t have taken itself so goddamn seriously), same thing with “True Blood” (granted, I more or less think stories involving vampires are stupid by default, but this is the first show since “Buffy” that I still can’t understand for the life of me why anyone watches, much less celebrates). “Carnivale” was almost interesting, but committed the cardinal television-serial sin of thinking out too much long-term mythology while forgetting to make the show interesting on a short-term episode-by-episode basis. “Rome” was cool until Caesar died; “Deadwood” was cool for the first year, and then it just fell off my radar. “The Wire” was okay, but all things considered just a more professional version of any given network cop-show (it would’ve benefitted from some of the pulpy fun of junky bullshit like “Oz”). And the less said about “The Sopranos”, the better.
Hmmmmmmmm. Don’t know if I buy the whole “overly-theatrical” gripe, Allan. I think that’s precisely what Nichols was going for so you never lost sight of the fact that it was Tony Kusner’s PLAY. The only thing different about it was that it was producwd as a television mini so EVERYONE could experience its power. Streep on AUTO-PILOT? Nah. I will agree with you on Wright and Louise-Parker, but, in all, every one of the performers gave it their all. PACINO gave the best performance of career in what is nominally known as his SCREAMING years.
Kirk as Prior still impressed me most of all. Also Ben Shenkman and Patrick Wilson as Louis and Joe. Sadly, these three always seem to get ignored in favor of the celebrities of the cast, though when you get right down to it, they have the biggest roles (Kirk especially).
My sister’s favourite film (or one of). Really want to see it. Nice to see your support.
I’m ecstatic there are so many lovers of this film around here, this is easily top 10 for the decade for me… damn two of my favorites (CLOSER and THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE) that are usually scoffed at seen as what they are (great)? I love this place.
As great as Portman is here, Clive Owen is a revelation.