list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Closer on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Closer/242152/default.aspx Title: Closer
Year: 2004
Director: Mike Nichols
Plot: Patrick Marber's acclaimed stage drama about the romantic interactions of four people has been given a reverent screen adaptation by director and producer Mike Nichols. Dan (Jude Law) is a writer in London who wants to finish a novel, but in the meantime supports himself by writing obituaries. One day he chances upon Alice (Natalie Portman), a beautiful young American expatriate, working as a stripper, when he sees her get hit by a car. Alice immediately falls for Dan, and gives him her love without reservation. Dan is initially enchanted with Alice, and returns her affection, but while she inspires him to write his novel (based on her life), her neediness begins to wear on him. Anna (Julia Roberts) is a photographer who is hired to take a portrait of Dan for the dust jacket of his book; Dan is attracted to her easy confidence, and while the two of them flirt, Anna soon (inadvertently through Dan's playful machinations) meets Larry (Clive Owen), a dermatologist, and marries him. Dan can't get Anna out of his mind even though she's married, and the two become lovers, but Dan is frustrated by the fact that Anna is reluctant to leave Larry for him. Patrick Marber wrote the screenplay for this adaptation of Closer; it was the playwright's first feature-film credit. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 85
Number of Lists: 54
Number of blog posts: 8
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:04:37 GMTCloser2004Mike Nichols<a href="/players/P___336340/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Patrick Marber</a>'s acclaimed stage drama about the romantic interactions of four people has been given a reverent screen adaptation by director and producer <a href="/players/P___104435/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Mike Nichols</a>. Dan (<a href="/players/P___230573/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jude Law</a>) is a writer in London who wants to finish a novel, but in the meantime supports himself by writing obituaries. One day he chances upon Alice (<a href="/players/P___197461/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Natalie Portman</a>), a beautiful young American expatriate, working as a stripper, when he sees her get hit by a car. Alice immediately falls for Dan, and gives him her love without reservation. Dan is initially enchanted with Alice, and returns her affection, but while she inspires him to write his novel (based on her life), her neediness begins to wear on him. Anna (<a href="/players/P____60634/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Julia Roberts</a>) is a photographer who is hired to take a portrait of Dan for the dust jacket of his book; Dan is attracted to her easy confidence, and while the two of them flirt, Anna soon (inadvertently through Dan's playful machinations) meets Larry (<a href="/players/P____54491/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Clive Owen</a>), a dermatologist, and marries him. Dan can't get Anna out of his mind even though she's married, and the two become lovers, but Dan is frustrated by the fact that Anna is reluctant to leave Larry for him. <a href="/players/P___336340/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Patrick Marber</a> wrote the screenplay for this adaptation of Closer; it was the playwright's first feature-film credit. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide85Tag Target (>10)54823http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u36374i2gno.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Closer/242152/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_March_30_Strippers/625/41415/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 4/2/2009 3:52:29 PM
Body: Well, since it appears I picked another topic that nobody wants to talk about I'll just have to do the talking. Not the greatest movie ever made but a landmark film nonetheless, Showgirls made an impact by being one of the few NC-17 films to get a wide theatrical release. And of course it turned the innocent bookworm Jesse Spano from Saved By The Bell into a knife wielding nymphomaniac stripper. Another film that made a big splash was Striptease. Demi Moore showed just how good a mother in her thirties can look by exposing her recently enhanced assets to the world. Jessica Alba helped increase sales of chaps and lassos in Sin City. Natalie Portman showed up those critics of her work in the Star Wars prequels by showing some skin in Closer. Not the best adaptation of a Chuck Palahniuk novel, but Choke does have a number of choice scenes, one of which involving the main characters predilection for strip clubs. After remarking to one of the exotic dancers that blondes have a higher chance of skin cancer and that one of her moles should get checked out, said stripper returns next time with her hair dyed brown and thanks him for telling her the thing about blondes. Ha ha ha. Pecker taught me what muff and tea-bagging was. Thanks John Waters! And lastly, Gilda with Rita Hayworth showing just how sexy stripping can be without removing hardly any clothes at all.
]]>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:52:29 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme4/2/2009 3:52:29 PMWell, since it appears I picked another topic that nobody wants to talk about I'll just have to do the talking. Not the greatest movie ever made but a landmark film nonetheless, Showgirls made an impact by being one of the few NC-17 films to get a wide theatrical release. And of course it turned the innocent bookworm Jesse Spano from Saved By The Bell into a knife wielding nymphomaniac stripper. Another film that made a big splash was Striptease. Demi Moore showed just how good a mother in her thirties can look by exposing her recently enhanced assets to the world. Jessica Alba helped increase sales of chaps and lassos in Sin City. Natalie Portman showed up those critics of her work in the Star Wars prequels by showing some skin in Closer. Not the best adaptation of a Chuck Palahniuk novel, but Choke does have a number of choice scenes, one of which involving the main characters predilection for strip clubs. After remarking to one of the exotic dancers that blondes have a higher chance of skin cancer and that one of her moles should get checked out, said stripper returns next time with her hair dyed brown and thanks him for telling her the thing about blondes. Ha ha ha. Pecker taught me what muff and tea-bagging was. Thanks John Waters! And lastly, Gilda with Rita Hayworth showing just how sexy stripping can be without removing hardly any clothes at all. http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/2/11/24965.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 2/11/2008 9:52:54 AM
Body: My Netflix movie of the week this week was Closer. I had heard nothing but mixed reviews about this movie since its release. Some people I know truly love it while others seem to hate it or, at least, believe the film version fails to hold a candle to the stage version. I have not seen the stage version, and I thought, since I like all of these actors, I might have a nice, unbiased approach to watching the film. Now that I have watched it, I'm left squarely in the middle, as neutral as neutral can be, regarding what I've seen. At the very least, the movie presents an extremely narrow and cynical, or, at least, one-sided view of love and romance, which, in some ways, is refreshing, as it's not the side usually portrayed, but in other ways is wholly depressing and not in a meaningful or powerful way.When Dan (Jude Law) meets Alice (Natalie Portman), an American expatriate working as a stripper, after she walks in front of a careening London taxi, it's something like love at first sight. Then, Dan meets Anna (Julia Roberts), a high-concept American photographer living in London, who takes his publicity photos for a novel he's written. Though he is in a lasting relationship with Alice, he is immediately attracted to Anna, forming an unlikely obsession. Anna at first spurns his advances, which Alice overhears while in Anna's bathroom; Alice asks Anna to capture her teary reaction on film. Anna's rebuff prompts Dan to play a prank where he poses as Anna on an internet sex chatroom and sets up a meeting between the real Anna and a horny dermatologist, Larry (Clive Owen), at the London Aquarium. The prank backfires, however, as Larry and Anna hit it off, and when the Dan and Alice are invited to Anna's exhibition featuring the sad photograph of Alice, Dan sees this as an opportunity to home in on Anna. Except, Larry and Alice, who also meet, find some animal magnetism between them and also share the unspoken common thread of self-deception as it relates to their partners and their undeniable emotional connection. Afterward, deception is the key theme, as the four lives interweave, and the complications of love and attraction are explored.I did not like this movie, but I also did not hate it. I didn't hate it because it was extremely well-performed. Four extremely good actors in the main parts make for some solid performances, particularly from the women. Julia Roberts played a selfish and weak character that is completely against type and as non-celebrity as can be and did so to the complete suspension of my disbelief, such that I forgot I was watching Julia Roberts. Natalie Portman, who never ceases to impress me, played an emotionally complex character and also a character balancing innocence and wisdom, childhood and clearly grown-up ideals. She's not a little girl anymore and wears that badge nakedly (pun intended). She was nominated for an Oscar, and I can see why. The men also gave performances not to be sneered at; I'm always drawn to Clive Owen. Any movie with him in it gets automatic points from me because he is simply so charismatic, even when he is playing someone as flawed as this alpha-male motivated by passion and revenge. Jude Law's performance may have been the weakest, but it was not weak; the climactic scene between his Dan and Owen's Larry, where they reach an uncomfortable understanding about their situation, had me sympathizing for his unsympathetic character.Mike Nichols directed this film, and I think he handles stage adaptation well because he is still able to capture nuances that always seem to read better on stage. Emotional reaction, moments, chemistry - he is able to illicit these elements from his performers no matter how good or bad his film is. I was engaged because of the strength of the performances and the careful rhythm Nichols employed, with close attention to dialogue tempo, atmospheric soundtrack, and so on.I didn't like this film, though, because the story, frankly, seemed incomplete and was disjointed. For a character drama, these characters were starkly incomplete in my eyes, with the possible exception of Alice, who is the starting and ending character in focus. It seems like their histories, their motivations, got lost in the shuffle of fast forwarding the story through time, without anything but a brief mention, and which happened quite a bit. I was left asking questions throughout the whole film: why does Dan pounce on Anna the way he does if he's happy and in love with Alice? Why does Anna think it's wrong one minute and ok the next to give into the affair when Alice is still with Dan? Why does Anna lead Larry on if she knows so much earlier that she loves Dan more? Why is Larry so devious - what makes Anna worth it to him? How is Alice different from Anna to either men, and why is Anna, seemingly the more imperfect of the two, the one the two men fight hardest for? All of my questions about Alice were answered, but with the other three characters, I felt something was missing, some vital clue about their character or circumstance that would lead them to act selfishly or deceive each other and themselves into these sins of passion. What I can't figure out is whether it's the stage play or the film to blame for this lapse in the narrative. Perhaps, someone would like to shed some light on that for me.In the end, I was mildly entertained but ultimately put off and a little depressed about the film, and I think the narrative flaws are kind of huge, because I just kept shouting at the screen: "Why?" and "WTF?" To that end, I rate this film a 6.5, between "cute but mediocre" and "shaky" because it's shaky or worse, but the strength and spectacle of the performances gives it points it would otherwise have lost. As to the test, this is a fail. I didn't like it all that much and would not spend additional money on it for the above reasons. The movie kind of has the effect of making the viewer cynical about relationships in general, and I don't like to watch cynical romance repeatedly, even if it is a new and interesting take on the subject. Such a view doesn't get me any closer to understanding relationships myself.
]]>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:52:54 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts2/11/2008 9:52:54 AMMy Netflix movie of the week this week was Closer. I had heard nothing but mixed reviews about this movie since its release. Some people I know truly love it while others seem to hate it or, at least, believe the film version fails to hold a candle to the stage version. I have not seen the stage version, and I thought, since I like all of these actors, I might have a nice, unbiased approach to watching the film. Now that I have watched it, I&#39;m left squarely in the middle, as neutral as neutral can be, regarding what I&#39;ve seen. At the very least, the movie presents an extremely narrow and cynical, or, at least, one-sided view of love and romance, which, in some ways, is refreshing, as it&#39;s not the side usually portrayed, but in other ways is wholly depressing and not in a meaningful or powerful way.When Dan (Jude Law) meets Alice (Natalie Portman), an American expatriate working as a stripper, after she walks in front of a careening London taxi, it&#39;s something like love at first sight. Then, Dan meets Anna (Julia Roberts), a high-concept American photographer living in London, who takes his publicity photos for a novel he&#39;s written. Though he is in a lasting relationship with Alice, he is immediately attracted to Anna, forming an unlikely obsession. Anna at first spurns his advances, which Alice overhears while in Anna&#39;s bathroom; Alice asks Anna to capture her teary reaction on film. Anna&#39;s rebuff prompts Dan to play a prank where he poses as Anna on an internet sex chatroom and sets up a meeting between the real Anna and a horny dermatologist, Larry (Clive Owen), at the London Aquarium. The prank backfires, however, as Larry and Anna hit it off, and when the Dan and Alice are invited to Anna&#39;s exhibition featuring the sad photograph of Alice, Dan sees this as an opportunity to home in on Anna. Except, Larry and Alice, who also meet, find some animal magnetism between them and also share the unspoken common thread of self-deception as it relates to their partners and their undeniable emotional connection. Afterward, deception is the key theme, as the four lives interweave, and the complications of love and attraction are explored.I did not like this movie, but I also did not hate it. I didn&#39;t hate it because it was extremely well-performed. Four extremely good actors in the main parts make for some solid performances, particularly from the women. Julia Roberts played a selfish and weak character that is completely against type and as non-celebrity as can be and did so to the complete suspension of my disbelief, such that I forgot I was watching Julia Roberts. Natalie Portman, who never ceases to impress me, played an emotionally complex character and also a character balancing innocence and wisdom, childhood and clearly grown-up ideals. She&#39;s not a little girl anymore and wears that badge nakedly (pun intended). She was nominated for an Oscar, and I can see why. The men also gave performances not to be sneered at; I&#39;m always drawn to Clive Owen. Any movie with him in it gets automatic points from me because he is simply so charismatic, even when he is playing someone as flawed as this alpha-male motivated by passion and revenge. Jude Law&#39;s performance may have been the weakest, but it was not weak; the climactic scene between his Dan and Owen&#39;s Larry, where they reach an uncomfortable understanding about their situation, had me sympathizing for his unsympathetic character.Mike Nichols directed this film, and I think he handles stage adaptation well because he is still able to capture nuances that always seem to read better on stage. Emotional reaction, moments, chemistry - he is able to illicit these elements from his performers no matter how good or bad his film is. I was engaged because of the strength of the performances and the careful rhythm Nichols employed, with close attention to dialogue tempo, atmospheric soundtrack, and so on.I didn&#39;t like this film, though, because the story, frankly, seemed incomplete and was disjointed. For a character drama, these characters were starkly incomplete in my eyes, with the possible exception of Alice, who is the starting and ending character in focus. It seems like their histories, their motivations, got lost in the shuffle of fast forwarding the story through time, without anything but a brief mention, and which happened quite a bit. I was left asking questions throughout the whole film: why does Dan pounce on Anna the way he does if he&#39;s happy and in love with Alice? Why does Anna think it&#39;s wrong one minute and ok the next to give into the affair when Alice is still with Dan? Why does Anna lead Larry on if she knows so much earlier that she loves Dan more? Why is Larry so devious - what makes Anna worth it to him? How is Alice different from Anna to either men, and why is Anna, seemingly the more imperfect of the two, the one the two men fight hardest for? All of my questions about Alice were answered, but with the other three characters, I felt something was missing, some vital clue about their character or circumstance that would lead them to act selfishly or deceive each other and themselves into these sins of passion. What I can&#39;t figure out is whether it&#39;s the stage play or the film to blame for this lapse in the narrative. Perhaps, someone would like to shed some light on that for me.In the end, I was mildly entertained but ultimately put off and a little depressed about the film, and I think the narrative flaws are kind of huge, because I just kept shouting at the screen: &quot;Why?&quot; and &quot;WTF?&quot; To that end, I rate this film a 6.5, between &quot;cute but mediocre&quot; and &quot;shaky&quot; because it&#39;s shaky or worse, but the strength and spectacle of the performances gives it points it would otherwise have lost. As to the test, this is a fail. I didn&#39;t like it all that much and would not spend additional money on it for the above reasons. The movie kind of has the effect of making the viewer cynical about relationships in general, and I don&#39;t like to watch cynical romance repeatedly, even if it is a new and interesting take on the subject. Such a view doesn&#39;t get me any closer to understanding relationships myself. http://www.spout.com/blogs/mnoo/archive/2007/7/14/14226.aspx Post By: mnoo
Post To: mnoo Blog
Post Date: 7/14/2007 7:09:14 AM
Body: I'm not quite sure why took so long for me to watch Closer initially. I think it was partly due to the fact that when it opened people, who'd seen the original play by Patrick Marber, expressed very strongly their disgust of someone like Julia Roberts et al taking on these roles. Probably my first impressions of the film came from people who disliked it, not for the story but for the vehicle it was delivered in, and that possibly put me off of the idea of seeing it... at least before I had the chance to read the play. Never got around to that so I thought it was time to take the plunge.There's no mistaking the brutal brilliance of the play/script. There are no empty words at all, everything is delivered with precision and on purpose. I can't remember when I've seen Jude Law in a role where he's not a sleaze ball of some kind, but he was certainly perfect for this role. And it was interesting to watch his character moving through from one end of the moral spectrum to the complete opposite in the course of the story. Julia Roberts I've never liked... but she was, if not brilliant, at least believable. Although very much the underdog in every scene. Natalie Portman (again!) was the backbone of the story in my opinion. She has the ability to portray sincere vulnerability, without it eclipsing her strength. Really a great performance. But I think everyone would agree that Clive Owen is the absolute core of this film. He is the mirror through which we are forced to look at ourselves as the primal creatures that we are. Raw, bruised, dark and true. He makes the whole movie for me.With wonderful performances from everyone I think the movie still manages to be more than just the sum of the actors' success. There's this atmosphere... a constant build up, a constant need to know more, a constant craving for... the truth of us as humans? It was hard to give rave reviews to any film right after seeing Brokeback - which was still in my heart at the time - but here's definitely one adaptation which didn't disappoint in the end, like I was afraid it would. I should have trusted Mike Nichols more.Have you ever seen a human heart? It looks like a fist wrapped in blood....
]]>Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:09:14 GMTmnoomnoo Blog7/14/2007 7:09:14 AMI&#39;m not quite sure why took so long for me to watch Closer initially. I think it was partly due to the fact that when it opened people, who&#39;d seen the original play by Patrick Marber, expressed very strongly their disgust of someone like Julia Roberts et al taking on these roles. Probably my first impressions of the film came from people who disliked it, not for the story but for the vehicle it was delivered in, and that possibly put me off of the idea of seeing it... at least before I had the chance to read the play. Never got around to that so I thought it was time to take the plunge.There&#39;s no mistaking the brutal brilliance of the play/script. There are no empty words at all, everything is delivered with precision and on purpose. I can&#39;t remember when I&#39;ve seen Jude Law in a role where he&#39;s not a sleaze ball of some kind, but he was certainly perfect for this role. And it was interesting to watch his character moving through from one end of the moral spectrum to the complete opposite in the course of the story. Julia Roberts I&#39;ve never liked... but she was, if not brilliant, at least believable. Although very much the underdog in every scene. Natalie Portman (again!) was the backbone of the story in my opinion. She has the ability to portray sincere vulnerability, without it eclipsing her strength. Really a great performance. But I think everyone would agree that Clive Owen is the absolute core of this film. He is the mirror through which we are forced to look at ourselves as the primal creatures that we are. Raw, bruised, dark and true. He makes the whole movie for me.With wonderful performances from everyone I think the movie still manages to be more than just the sum of the actors&#39; success. There&#39;s this atmosphere... a constant build up, a constant need to know more, a constant craving for... the truth of us as humans? It was hard to give rave reviews to any film right after seeing Brokeback - which was still in my heart at the time - but here&#39;s definitely one adaptation which didn&#39;t disappoint in the end, like I was afraid it would. I should have trusted Mike Nichols more.Have you ever seen a human heart? It looks like a fist wrapped in blood.... http://www.spout.com/blogs/moviebabe/archive/2007/7/12/13790.aspx Post By: MovieBabe
Post To: MovieBabe Blog
Post Date: 7/12/2007 11:29:00 PM
Body: By Tricia Olszewski It’s quite possible that Mike Nichols wants his audience never to get involved in romantic relationships again. After mulling terminal illness in the recent television specials Wit and Angels in America, the director has returned to the sometimes equally brutal subject he’s been exploring every few years since his 1966 debut: love and sex, or the ties that scald. Add Closer to Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, The Graduate, Carnal Knowledge, and even Primary Colors, and you have enough train wreckage to scare the Kinsey out of casual boot-knockers for good. Like both Woolf and Carnal Knowledge, Closer is a mesmerizing, zoomed-in meditation on the coupling of four. The film is bookended by the slow-motion stroll of a beauty on a busy city sidewalk: As Damien Rice’s aching “The Blower’s Daughter” plays—“And so it is/The shorter story/No love, no glory/No hero in her sky”—a young former stripper named Alice (Natalie Portman) cuts through the unwashed, commanding the camera’s attention first in London and later in New York. Naturally, she also commands the attention of the men around her, who in the opening scene include Dan (Jude Law), a shabbily dressed obituary writer whose eye-lock with Alice may well be the most thrilling moment of his life. When Alice, apparently either smugly distracted by her effect on the guys or just too damn ethereal to be bothered with tedious matters such as traffic, gets hit by a car, Dan takes the opportunity to be her knight in shining armor. Thing is, Dan isn’t the lonely heart he appears to be: He’s living with someone when he and Alice spend that afternoon in the hospital. A year or so later, American photographer Anna (Julia Roberts) is taking Dan’s picture for the jacket of his first novel—dedicated to Alice—when artist and subject share an urgent kiss. Anna’s reaction when she finds out Dan is now living with Alice, however, isn’t so friendly—and when Dan responds to her sudden cold shoulder with “But you kissed me!” she replies, “What are you, 12?” By this early stage of the film, you’ll realize that, emotionally, that’s about right: When he can’t get Anna out of his head a few months later—Closer jumps, seamlessly, forward and sometimes back in time—Dan, in a chat room called London Sexanon, poses as Anna while IMing a freaky dermatologist named Larry (Clive Owen), which leads to Larry and the real Anna’s meeting and subsequent relationship. In his production notes, Nichols comments that when people think about intimate unions, “we remember beginnings and endings and tend to edit out the middles.” The odd thing about Closer is that even though it doesn’t bother with the worn-in, contented stage of these affairs, skipping months and years between first meetings and death-knell problems, it also barely re-creates the thrill of falling in love. Based on the Broadway play by Patrick Marber, a TV veteran who also shaped the screenplay, the film remains highly theatrical, offering one stagy beginning and knee-jerk “I love you” after another. Of course, the dramatis personae are so flawed that even new relationships smack of distress: Attraction, especially in Dan’s case, nearly always comes off as neediness, the promise of the new feeding the ugly, gaping holes in people who, in the film’s psychospeak, think they “don’t deserve happiness.” So every relationship kicks off with a sinking feeling, even when things could work out nicely. And when they work out not so nicely—well... One situation that Closer brings to especially horrible life is the confession, including all of its messy follow-up talk. With all the shifting loyalties at play here, Nichols gets to present Marber’s variations on this conversation four times, and each is wrenching. Take the George-and-Martha vitriol in the sorry-I’ve-been-cheating scene between Larry and Anna, who’ve married. Both have secrets they suddenly want to reveal the night Larry comes home from a dermatology convention, though Anna’s is much more devastating. The grilling that ensues as the camera follows the couple around their apartment is merciless: Where did you fuck him? How recently? Is he good? Do you go down on him? How does it taste? When Anna, at first weepy and regretful, is finally pushed to hiss, “It tastes like you but sweeter!” Larry responds with “Thanks for your honesty. Now fuck off and die.” The film’s four big names are quite effective as morally bankrupt but still sympathetic characters. If there is a weak link, it’s Portman, but only because she looks like a preteen next to the others and is unsurprising—which simply means that she’s as subtle, magnetic, and heartbreaking as she was playing the romantic lead in Garden State. Everyone else, meanwhile, brings a little something different to the table: Law’s performance as a compulsive working-class philanderer is much more nuanced, raw, and ultimately believable than his turn in a nearly identical role in Alfie. Roberts sheds her sassy America’s-sweetheart demeanor to play the twice-divorced Anna as a woman who isn’t quite jaded enough not to have a serious grass-is-always-greener complex. Owen, far from looking the suave heartthrob of King Arthur or Croupier, wears Larry’s insecurity and desperate unhappiness with slightly deluded goofiness, best shown when he first meets Anna and cheerily, unabashedly describes the pathetic cyberencounter he thought they had the previous day. Cinematographer Stephen Goldblatt and production designer Tim Hatley create a London that, like Closer’s central relationships, alternates between lived-in and cold: The cramped apartments, offices, and gray-day commutes that make up the men’s lives contrast with the spectacular art galleries, spacious lofts, and slick strip clubs the women tend to occupy. The characters are as comfortable inhabiting the opposing worlds as they are with their fluid ethics: The most obvious behavior pattern in Marber’s script (besides cowardice, of course) is mewling about how you can’t help but tell the truth—though only after extended periods of betrayal. At the end of all the crossing, double-crossing, and expert unpacking of a caseload of issues, you’ll probably find these people dreadful. But anyone who doesn’t see a little bit of him- or herself in the wickedly honest portrayals has got to be a saint. And whatever your malfunction, Dr. Larry has you diagnosed: As he points out in one particularly Nicholsesque metaphor, the human heart resembles nothing so much as a fist covered in blood.
]]>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 03:29:00 GMTMovieBabeMovieBabe Blog7/12/2007 11:29:00 PM By Tricia Olszewski It&rsquo;s quite possible that Mike Nichols wants his audience never to get involved in romantic relationships again. After mulling terminal illness in the recent television specials Wit and Angels in America, the director has returned to the sometimes equally brutal subject he&rsquo;s been exploring every few years since his 1966 debut: love and sex, or the ties that scald. Add Closer to Who&rsquo;s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, The Graduate, Carnal Knowledge, and even Primary Colors, and you have enough train wreckage to scare the Kinsey out of casual boot-knockers for good. Like both Woolf and Carnal Knowledge, Closer is a mesmerizing, zoomed-in meditation on the coupling of four. The film is bookended by the slow-motion stroll of a beauty on a busy city sidewalk: As Damien Rice&rsquo;s aching &ldquo;The Blower&rsquo;s Daughter&rdquo; plays&mdash;&ldquo;And so it is/The shorter story/No love, no glory/No hero in her sky&rdquo;&mdash;a young former stripper named Alice (Natalie Portman) cuts through the unwashed, commanding the camera&rsquo;s attention first in London and later in New York. Naturally, she also commands the attention of the men around her, who in the opening scene include Dan (Jude Law), a shabbily dressed obituary writer whose eye-lock with Alice may well be the most thrilling moment of his life. When Alice, apparently either smugly distracted by her effect on the guys or just too damn ethereal to be bothered with tedious matters such as traffic, gets hit by a car, Dan takes the opportunity to be her knight in shining armor. Thing is, Dan isn&rsquo;t the lonely heart he appears to be: He&rsquo;s living with someone when he and Alice spend that afternoon in the hospital. A year or so later, American photographer Anna (Julia Roberts) is taking Dan&rsquo;s picture for the jacket of his first novel&mdash;dedicated to Alice&mdash;when artist and subject share an urgent kiss. Anna&rsquo;s reaction when she finds out Dan is now living with Alice, however, isn&rsquo;t so friendly&mdash;and when Dan responds to her sudden cold shoulder with &ldquo;But you kissed me!&rdquo; she replies, &ldquo;What are you, 12?&rdquo; By this early stage of the film, you&rsquo;ll realize that, emotionally, that&rsquo;s about right: When he can&rsquo;t get Anna out of his head a few months later&mdash;Closer jumps, seamlessly, forward and sometimes back in time&mdash;Dan, in a chat room called London Sexanon, poses as Anna while IMing a freaky dermatologist named Larry (Clive Owen), which leads to Larry and the real Anna&rsquo;s meeting and subsequent relationship. In his production notes, Nichols comments that when people think about intimate unions, &ldquo;we remember beginnings and endings and tend to edit out the middles.&rdquo; The odd thing about Closer is that even though it doesn&rsquo;t bother with the worn-in, contented stage of these affairs, skipping months and years between first meetings and death-knell problems, it also barely re-creates the thrill of falling in love. Based on the Broadway play by Patrick Marber, a TV veteran who also shaped the screenplay, the film remains highly theatrical, offering one stagy beginning and knee-jerk &ldquo;I love you&rdquo; after another. Of course, the dramatis personae are so flawed that even new relationships smack of distress: Attraction, especially in Dan&rsquo;s case, nearly always comes off as neediness, the promise of the new feeding the ugly, gaping holes in people who, in the film&rsquo;s psychospeak, think they &ldquo;don&rsquo;t deserve happiness.&rdquo; So every relationship kicks off with a sinking feeling, even when things could work out nicely. And when they work out not so nicely&mdash;well... One situation that Closer brings to especially horrible life is the confession, including all of its messy follow-up talk. With all the shifting loyalties at play here, Nichols gets to present Marber&rsquo;s variations on this conversation four times, and each is wrenching. Take the George-and-Martha vitriol in the sorry-I&rsquo;ve-been-cheating scene between Larry and Anna, who&rsquo;ve married. Both have secrets they suddenly want to reveal the night Larry comes home from a dermatology convention, though Anna&rsquo;s is much more devastating. The grilling that ensues as the camera follows the couple around their apartment is merciless: Where did you fuck him? How recently? Is he good? Do you go down on him? How does it taste? When Anna, at first weepy and regretful, is finally pushed to hiss, &ldquo;It tastes like you but sweeter!&rdquo; Larry responds with &ldquo;Thanks for your honesty. Now fuck off and die.&rdquo; The film&rsquo;s four big names are quite effective as morally bankrupt but still sympathetic characters. If there is a weak link, it&rsquo;s Portman, but only because she looks like a preteen next to the others and is unsurprising&mdash;which simply means that she&rsquo;s as subtle, magnetic, and heartbreaking as she was playing the romantic lead in Garden State. Everyone else, meanwhile, brings a little something different to the table: Law&rsquo;s performance as a compulsive working-class philanderer is much more nuanced, raw, and ultimately believable than his turn in a nearly identical role in Alfie. Roberts sheds her sassy America&rsquo;s-sweetheart demeanor to play the twice-divorced Anna as a woman who isn&rsquo;t quite jaded enough not to have a serious grass-is-always-greener complex. Owen, far from looking the suave heartthrob of King Arthur or Croupier, wears Larry&rsquo;s insecurity and desperate unhappiness with slightly deluded goofiness, best shown when he first meets Anna and cheerily, unabashedly describes the pathetic cyberencounter he thought they had the previous day. Cinematographer Stephen Goldblatt and production designer Tim Hatley create a London that, like Closer&rsquo;s central relationships, alternates between lived-in and cold: The cramped apartments, offices, and gray-day commutes that make up the men&rsquo;s lives contrast with the spectacular art galleries, spacious lofts, and slick strip clubs the women tend to occupy. The characters are as comfortable inhabiting the opposing worlds as they are with their fluid ethics: The most obvious behavior pattern in Marber&rsquo;s script (besides cowardice, of course) is mewling about how you can&rsquo;t help but tell the truth&mdash;though only after extended periods of betrayal. At the end of all the crossing, double-crossing, and expert unpacking of a caseload of issues, you&rsquo;ll probably find these people dreadful. But anyone who doesn&rsquo;t see a little bit of him- or herself in the wickedly honest portrayals has got to be a saint. And whatever your malfunction, Dr. Larry has you diagnosed: As he points out in one particularly Nicholsesque metaphor, the human heart resembles nothing so much as a fist covered in blood. http://www.spout.com/blogs/radiogerbil/archive/2007/7/9/13534.aspx Post By: radiogerbil
Post To: radiogerbil Blog
Post Date: 7/9/2007 3:07:00 PM
Body: I always feel better about myself after watching a movie like “Closer” because the characters are so messed up that they make me look angelic. Rife with graphic sexual dialogue and nudity, the film isn’t for everyone, but it’s a well-done and raw film that strips mankind down to its basest instincts and lays its feelings bare for all to see. I liked it for its honesty and powerful dialogue. I would even watch it again, but, like “Sin City,” it left me feeling a little dirty after the credits rolled. Clive Owen is as masterful as ever, and Natalie Portman does very well also. Jude Law is so good at being detestable, and he’s very detestable in this film. Julia Roberts said in an interview that she hated her character in this movie because she’s so disgusting, and she is. Damien Rice has two songs in the movie (“The Blower’s Daughter” & “Cold Water”) which adds a lot of depth and meaning to the movie because the characters, for all their selfishness, still cannot take their eyes off of each other. This has disastrous results for some but delivers hope to others. Ultimately, it’s about forgiveness and being able to see past the filth to see the person you love and stick with them through their follies.
]]>Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:07:00 GMTradiogerbilradiogerbil Blog7/9/2007 3:07:00 PMI always feel better about myself after watching a movie like &ldquo;Closer&rdquo; because the characters are so messed up that they make me look angelic. Rife with graphic sexual dialogue and nudity, the film isn&rsquo;t for everyone, but it&rsquo;s a well-done and raw film that strips mankind down to its basest instincts and lays its feelings bare for all to see. I liked it for its honesty and powerful dialogue. I would even watch it again, but, like &ldquo;Sin City,&rdquo; it left me feeling a little dirty after the credits rolled. Clive Owen is as masterful as ever, and Natalie Portman does very well also. Jude Law is so good at being detestable, and he&rsquo;s very detestable in this film. Julia Roberts said in an interview that she hated her character in this movie because she&rsquo;s so disgusting, and she is. Damien Rice has two songs in the movie (&ldquo;The Blower&rsquo;s Daughter&rdquo; &amp; &ldquo;Cold Water&rdquo;) which adds a lot of depth and meaning to the movie because the characters, for all their selfishness, still cannot take their eyes off of each other. This has disastrous results for some but delivers hope to others. Ultimately, it&rsquo;s about forgiveness and being able to see past the filth to see the person you love and stick with them through their follies. http://www.spout.com/blogs/ilovegarages/archive/2007/1/22/5081.aspx Post By: ilovegarages
Post To: ilovegarages Blog
Post Date: 1/22/2007 11:24:00 PM
Body: There is quite a bit to say about this movie, but a lot of it is only to be said to someone else whose seen it, so I'll keep it short. It's up to you to decide anyways.I went into this movie expecting what my friends said to be an extremely depressing and bleak outlook on relationships. I didn't really get that out of it, well, I got the bleak outlook part, but that is easily justifiable: Everything that happens to these people is their own fault and, believe me, they make some stupid decisions. So with that said, you have to take it all with a grain of salt knowing that good relationships shouldn't be this way. This is the Hollywood way.Granted, if you're feeling down, I wouldn't watch Closer. But if you're feeling introspective (ooh, ten dollars right there), I'd hazard a viewing and see what piqued a lot of peoples' curiosity about four very confused, intolerable, profane and potty-mouthed individuals at the end of their ropes.Oh yeah, Natalie Portman isn't really hard to look at either.
]]>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 04:24:00 GMTilovegaragesilovegarages Blog1/22/2007 11:24:00 PMThere is quite a bit to say about this movie, but a lot of it is only to be said to someone else whose seen it, so I'll keep it short. It's up to you to decide anyways.I went into this movie expecting what my friends said to be an extremely depressing and bleak outlook on relationships. I didn't really get that out of it, well, I got the bleak outlook part, but that is easily justifiable: Everything that happens to these people is their own fault and, believe me, they make some stupid decisions. So with that said, you have to take it all with a grain of salt knowing that good relationships shouldn't be this way. This is the Hollywood way.Granted, if you're feeling down, I wouldn't watch Closer. But if you're feeling introspective (ooh, ten dollars right there), I'd hazard a viewing and see what piqued a lot of peoples' curiosity about four very confused, intolerable, profane and potty-mouthed individuals at the end of their ropes.Oh yeah, Natalie Portman isn't really hard to look at either. http://www.spout.com/blogs/caitiedid/archive/2007/1/20/5054.aspx Post By: caitiedid
Post To: popcorn and milkduds
Post Date: 1/20/2007 12:37:00 PM
Body: I had heard a lot about this movie before I finally managed to watch it - oh, it's filthy. There's so much filthy dialogue in it, it's just nasty. I heard endlessly of the scene in which Julia Roberts describes the taste of...well, anyway, I was prepared for a veritable "Hustler" magazine of a movie. But after all I had heard, I felt that the movie was actually a bit tame. Sex and the heartbreak that it can cause are dealt with frankly and often, yes, but there are no actual sex scenes (if you discount an extended scene that takes place in a strip club). In the world of Closer, sex is not something to be enjoyed - it is done for revenge, out of guilt, or obligation. But never, it seems, out of love. There are four characters in Closer. There are extras, yes, but only four characters, and they are all very, very bad people. Dan (Jude Law), is an unsuccessful writer who enters a relationship with Alice (Natalie Portman), but soon falls for Anna (Julia Roberts), who eventually gets with Larry (Clive Owen). Much partner-switching ensues. There is only one scene where all four characters are in the same room, but each has a profound effect on the other three. In place of action, the movie offers a hell of a lot of dialogue, but it never feels pretentious or weighty. This is helped by the fact that the four actors are all very gifted (though, some more than others). Clive Owen, for instance, entirely deserved the Best Supporting Actor nom he recieved. He is able to go from stone-faced shock to a complete breakdown, back to shock and then to burning rage. The movie is almost worth watching just to marvel at his performance. I spent a great deal of time after watching it trying to figure out what message the film was trying to get across. All of the characters seem to be pathological liars - so, don't date liars? Lies cannot be avoided? I don't know. Perhaps there is no deeper meaning. Maybe the movie is just about four screwed up people and how they ruined each other's lives. It's harsh, and it's sometimes shocking, but you just can't look away.
]]>Sat, 20 Jan 2007 17:37:00 GMTcaitiedidpopcorn and milkduds1/20/2007 12:37:00 PMI had heard a lot about this movie before I finally managed to watch it - oh, it's filthy. There's so much filthy dialogue in it, it's just nasty. I heard endlessly of the scene in which Julia Roberts describes the taste of...well, anyway, I was prepared for a veritable "Hustler" magazine of a movie. But after all I had heard, I felt that the movie was actually a bit tame. Sex and the heartbreak that it can cause are dealt with frankly and often, yes, but there are no actual sex scenes (if you discount an extended scene that takes place in a strip club). In the world of Closer, sex is not something to be enjoyed - it is done for revenge, out of guilt, or obligation. But never, it seems, out of love. There are four characters in Closer. There are extras, yes, but only four characters, and they are all very, very bad people. Dan (Jude Law), is an unsuccessful writer who enters a relationship with Alice (Natalie Portman), but soon falls for Anna (Julia Roberts), who eventually gets with Larry (Clive Owen). Much partner-switching ensues. There is only one scene where all four characters are in the same room, but each has a profound effect on the other three. In place of action, the movie offers a hell of a lot of dialogue, but it never feels pretentious or weighty. This is helped by the fact that the four actors are all very gifted (though, some more than others). Clive Owen, for instance, entirely deserved the Best Supporting Actor nom he recieved. He is able to go from stone-faced shock to a complete breakdown, back to shock and then to burning rage. The movie is almost worth watching just to marvel at his performance. I spent a great deal of time after watching it trying to figure out what message the film was trying to get across. All of the characters seem to be pathological liars - so, don't date liars? Lies cannot be avoided? I don't know. Perhaps there is no deeper meaning. Maybe the movie is just about four screwed up people and how they ruined each other's lives. It's harsh, and it's sometimes shocking, but you just can't look away. http://www.spout.com/blogs/gothere/archive/2007/1/14/5021.aspx Post By: gothere
Post To: You should go there
Post Date: 1/14/2007 12:59:00 PM
Body: I loved this film. Possibly my favorite Mike Nichols effort since The Graduate. Not sure if this makes me a pervert or a sadist or something, but I loved its rawness, its honesty, its unapologetic look into sex, relationships, dependency, jealously, selfishness. I like all the actors, even Julie Roberts though she's become somewhat annoying in recent years. The characters were intriguing, the dialogue a mahine gun, plot evolution a delight, and the ending perfect. The overlay of Damien Rice's music was icing.
]]>Sun, 14 Jan 2007 17:59:00 GMTgothereYou should go there1/14/2007 12:59:00 PMI loved this film. Possibly my favorite Mike Nichols effort since The Graduate. Not sure if this makes me a pervert or a sadist or something, but I loved its rawness, its honesty, its unapologetic look into sex, relationships, dependency, jealously, selfishness. I like all the actors, even Julie Roberts though she's become somewhat annoying in recent years. The characters were intriguing, the dialogue a mahine gun, plot evolution a delight, and the ending perfect. The overlay of Damien Rice's music was icing. http://www.spout.com/blogs/gothere/archive/2007/1/13/5018.aspx Post By: gothere
Post To: You should go there
Post Date: 1/13/2007 2:37:00 PM
Body: At first I was shocked, then pleasantly surprised. The film hypothesizes the effect of not having a future on humanity. What a world would be like without the promise of a future generation. How much of what we do is intended to benefit people who follow us? How much of what we do should we intended for our children?A depressing movie on many fronts, but more visceral and real than most big-action movies. Not that I'd call Children of Men a big-action movie per se, but there's a lot of it. Bullets that don't just fly around harmlessly; people get hurt. I much prefer weapons that actually inflict pain like they really do. I'm becoming a fan of Clive Owen every since Closer, even though he plays a similar role, sort of. English suaveness but rough around the edges, a flask in his overcoat, an earnest over-sized brute with just enough control to take to dinner. Dangerous but human.This film paints a very grim picture of one of my worst fears, breakdown of social order, chaos, selfishness, aimless violence. There are a lot of big-brother-ish overtones and not-so-subtle social critique. People are being carted away to haulocaust-like camps not fit for people in buses labeled "Homeland Security." The character who shows the most compassion is Michael Caine as a stereotypical Hollywood hippy, complete with Beatles and pot. All this seems to scream: Where did we gone wrong? Or, beware.All this might be too much for many viewers, too dark, too meaningless and silly. But for me, our protagonists' ultimate objective, trying to get to a fabled boat called "Tomorrow" from "The Human Project", was in the end a saving grace. None of this is explained, or at least not very well. But that' makes it better for me. Rather than being tempted to wrap this up with a contrived, tight, literal ending, the film leaves many questions unanswered. The ship "Tomorrow" as an obvious metaphor gives the rest of the film more latitude. The ending allows the film to be a broader metaphor, posing more questions than it attempts to answer. I left the theater thinking about the message rather than the details.
]]>Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:37:00 GMTgothereYou should go there1/13/2007 2:37:00 PMAt first I was shocked, then pleasantly surprised. The film hypothesizes the effect of not having a future on humanity. What a world would be like without the promise of a future generation. How much of what we do is intended to benefit people who follow us? How much of what we do should we intended for our children?A depressing movie on many fronts, but more visceral and real than most big-action movies. Not that I'd call Children of Men a big-action movie per se, but there's a lot of it. Bullets that don't just fly around harmlessly; people get hurt. I much prefer weapons that actually inflict pain like they really do. I'm becoming a fan of Clive Owen every since Closer, even though he plays a similar role, sort of. English suaveness but rough around the edges, a flask in his overcoat, an earnest over-sized brute with just enough control to take to dinner. Dangerous but human.This film paints a very grim picture of one of my worst fears, breakdown of social order, chaos, selfishness, aimless violence. There are a lot of big-brother-ish overtones and not-so-subtle social critique. People are being carted away to haulocaust-like camps not fit for people in buses labeled "Homeland Security." The character who shows the most compassion is Michael Caine as a stereotypical Hollywood hippy, complete with Beatles and pot. All this seems to scream: Where did we gone wrong? Or, beware.All this might be too much for many viewers, too dark, too meaningless and silly. But for me, our protagonists' ultimate objective, trying to get to a fabled boat called "Tomorrow" from "The Human Project", was in the end a saving grace. None of this is explained, or at least not very well. But that' makes it better for me. Rather than being tempted to wrap this up with a contrived, tight, literal ending, the film leaves many questions unanswered. The ship "Tomorrow" as an obvious metaphor gives the rest of the film more latitude. The ending allows the film to be a broader metaphor, posing more questions than it attempts to answer. I left the theater thinking about the message rather than the details. http://www.spout.com/groups/bbk/Re_V_for_Vendetta/68/1285/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: patches
Post To: bbk
Post Date: 5/25/2006 9:18:52 AM
Body: Natalie Portman has really come to, her first performance in The Professional LonTheProfessional's detail page I thought was fleeting, beginners luck. After seeing her cardboard Star Wars performance, I thought she was pounding the nails in her own coffin... But then came Closer, Closer's detail page which knocked me on my butt. Her performance was really surprising. I felt like she getting there in V.
]]>Thu, 25 May 2006 13:18:52 GMTpatchesbbk5/25/2006 9:18:52 AMNatalie Portman has really come to, her first performance in The Professional <a href='http://www.spout.com/films/LonTheProfessional/91287/default.aspx'>LonTheProfessional's detail page</a> I thought was fleeting, beginners luck. After seeing her cardboard Star Wars performance, I thought she was pounding the nails in her own coffin... But then came Closer, <a href='http://www.spout.com/films/Closer/242152/default.aspx'>Closer's detail page</a> which knocked me on my butt. Her performance was really surprising. I felt like she getting there in V. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 609

Number of people who tagged: 316

Number of times used: 942

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:10:58 GMT609316942Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sex/MemberTagFilms.aspxsex
Number of films tagged: 2414

Number of people who tagged: 126

Number of times used: 549

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:42:22 GMT2414126549Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disturbing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisturbing
Number of films tagged: 283

Number of people who tagged: 119

Number of times used: 394

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT283119394Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/personal-classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxpersonal-classic
Number of films tagged: 180

Number of people who tagged: 64

Number of times used: 274

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:21:00 GMT18064274Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/betrayal/MemberTagFilms.aspxbetrayal
Number of films tagged: 1035

Number of people who tagged: 62

Number of times used: 155

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:42:32 GMT103562155Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/deception/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeception
Number of films tagged: 1090

Number of people who tagged: 55

Number of times used: 123

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:18:11 GMT109055123Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bizarre/MemberTagFilms.aspxbizarre
Number of films tagged: 228

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 113

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:12:13 GMT22853113Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/life/MemberTagFilms.aspxlife
Number of films tagged: 1082

Number of people who tagged: 52

Number of times used: 224

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:43 GMT108252224Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/divorce/MemberTagFilms.aspxdivorce
Number of films tagged: 1042

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 121

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:35:44 GMT104245121Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/emotional/MemberTagFilms.aspxemotional
Number of films tagged: 66

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 106

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:02:06 GMT6645106Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/chick-flick/MemberTagFilms.aspxchick-flick
Number of films tagged: 32

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 72

]]>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:24:10 GMT323072Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/affair/MemberTagFilms.aspxaffair
Number of films tagged: 84

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 96

]]>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:27:26 GMT842996Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/realistic/MemberTagFilms.aspxrealistic
Number of films tagged: 20

Number of people who tagged: 24

Number of times used: 27

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:29:30 GMT202427Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/must-see/MemberTagFilms.aspxmust-see
Number of films tagged: 59

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 67

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:26:12 GMT592067Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/adultery/MemberTagFilms.aspxadultery
Number of films tagged: 48

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 57

]]>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:15:15 GMT481957Tag