So, among the wonders of Netflix and probably the Blockbuster Online Service as well: when you start queuing your movies, the website fiercely and constantly lists recommendations for other movies you should want to watch, maintaining your interest and subscription in the process. When I queued up Eternal Sunshine, and after already having rated films such as Adaptation, American Beauty, and Memento with five stars, Netflix recommended another Charlie Kaufman vehicle that I puzzlingly missed at the time of release, Being John Malkovich. Naturally, I queued it up. I think based on Eternal Sunshine and Adaptation, I can count myself a Kaufman fan. He is something of a genius in his own right (or write, hee hee).
Oddly, though, I didn't like this film as much as the others. I still liked it. It is certainly one of the most creatively original movies I have ever come across, and the sheer fact of its originality makes it a highly recommendable film, even if the potential viewer were to ultimately hate it in the end. Yet and still, I view the film, after a few days of digestion, as the visual equivalent of an acid trip. It was beyond quirky, was rather dark, and went to places that I thought were interesting but not necessarily entertaining. Still, props to Kaufman and Spike Jonze and the entire ensemble cast (not the least of which includes the titular man himself) for this wacky film.
Obligatory plot summary, to the best of my ability: John Cusack plays Craig Schwartz, a struggling puppeteer who decides to ease his financial troubles by taking a day job. He finds himself on floor seven and a half (apparently designed in response to the impassioned plea of a token little person) and accepting a position as a file clerk, given his Guinness-inspired fast hands, and no thanks to the slightly deaf receptionist Flo (Mary Kay Place). While in his office, he discovers a portal in the wall, which oddly enough, leads him to the brain of none other than actor John Malkovich, playing himself. Through this portal, Craig spends 15 minutes as the elusive thespian before he is dumped magically into a ditch off the New Jersey Turnpike. Of course, there are complications. For one: there is Maxine (Catherine Keener), a co-worker for whom Craig has been lusting, with whom he shares information about the portal, and who ultimately gets the notion that a side business, charging wouldbe portal visitors $200 for an actual head trip, could be sprug up from this opportunity. For two: Craig's wife Lotte (Cameron Diaz), in a completely nutty performance, who he also tells about the portal so as to assuage his guilt over the extra time spent with Maxine, wants a head trip herself. Trouble is: she sees the trip as a life, and possibly, gender-changing experience, especially since Maxine decides to see what all the fuss is about regarding Malkovich and flirts her way to a date with him while Lotte is occupying his brain, at which point sparks fly. And, of course, Malkovich himself eventually catches on to the fact that he is gradually losing control of his higher functions...
Phew. That's the best I can do without giving away the whole ball of wax. And what a sticky ball it is. Again, this movie gets all A's from me for its level of originality. The visual representations of the progress from mundane to extraordinary with each new visit to John's brain are something to behold. My absolute favorite scene was when Mr. Malkovich as Mr. Malkovich realizes that his brain is the portal destination in question and decides to take the trip himself. Highly disturbing yet equally hysterical, not to mention the deft little nod to philosophy without becoming too preachy - that scene was truly artful, in my humble opinion.
Also mesmerizing were the performances by the whole ensemble. They handled this crazy material with expert craftsmanship. There was complete suspension of disbelief on my part; I have to say I was really most impressed with Cameron Diaz, who doesn't get away from playing the slightly ditzy but wisecracking blonde often enough. She was the only character who made me laugh, even when it was laughter of the nervous and/or uncomfortable type.
I can't say I loved this movie, though, and it boils right down to the subject matter. Craig becomes a tragic character for reasons that are never fully realized in the story; all the viewer has are guesses, and to me, that's not something I should be guessing about. Also, despite the intelligence and thought put into this script, there was also something intensely juvenile male-ish about it, from the underdeveloped Craig (is this the reason why he's tragic? is that a fault of his circumstances or his choices?) to the id versus ego sexual interplay of the four main characters to the ridiculous sideplot (regardless of the outcome) of Lester (Orson Bean) and his fountain of youth. In the end, the film, as metaphor to me, is the visual fantasy of the quintessential nerd type who spends all of his time daydreaming as he sits in front of his computer (or whatever device he is currently using - and the term "device" is used liberally here), wanting for something he can never really have because he never really has the nerve to seize it in the end (and nerve is also used liberally).
If those last few remarks sounded scathing, they weren't intended to be. It's only that I don't relate to the viewpoint that I actually saw being projected from the picture and its zany plot, and that lack of connection knocked my enjoyment of the flick down a notch for me. I emphasize that I still appreciate the film for what it is, but I can't call it a masterpiece or even perfectly entertaining. So, I rate it an even 8 for having minor flaws but still being very good.
In the end, though, it does not pass my test. I couldn't watch this repeatedly. I like weird, but this may be pushing my comfort limits on weird, and I feel I understood it enough the first time around. I'm still glad I watched it, and I still say that anyone who hasn't seen it should find it and watch it for what it is: a true piece of art.
My only question: what if - just what if, and I know it's unlikely, given the actor we're talking about here, but pretend - what if John Malkovich had said, "No, you can't use my name and likeness for your warped little picture?" Which actor would have been even remotely worthy as an alternative?? And would they still have made the picture? These are the questions that plague me. I know - I may be just as weird as this movie was. Well, almost.