I’d certainly love for William Friedkin to have a comeback
similar to Robert Altman’s triumphant revival in the 90s, but Killer Joe doesn’t quite get us there
yet. It is a very good film, however. As in his best work from the 70s, Friedkin’s
goal is not to edify or entertain but to unnerve, and this he does as well as
anyone. More importantly, like Roman
Polanski, he does it through the steady build-up of tension, which takes actual
discipline, rather than merely hurling bile and blood at the camera like most
filmmakers do when they want to look edgy.
Killer Joe is the second
consecutive Friedkin film to be based on a play by Tracy Letts, after 2006’s Bug.
These two films represent Friedkin’s most effective and personal work in
about 20 years. They are both a bit stage-bound,
perhaps unavoidably, but they are emotionally harrowing and allow Friedkin,
characteristically, to explore themes of madness, alienation and violence. The titular Joe is a hit man played by
Matthew McConaughey hired by Chris (Emile Hirsch) to murder his mother for the
insurance money. Needless to say, things
don’t go exactly smoothly, especially after Joe sets his eye on Chris’ teenage
sister Dottie (Juno Temple ). Although Chris can’t meet Joe’s fee, Joe decides
that Dottie will do nicely as a down payment.
Moving into the trailer belonging to Chris’ father (Thomas Haden Church)
and step-mother (Gina Gershon), Joe proceeds to subtly and not-so-subtly
terrorize the family and in the process force them to realize how selfish and even
animalistic they are. I very much admire
Friedkin, at this stage in his life (in his 70s), pursuing a more stripped-down
and less commercial style. For many
years he seemed like a man who had given up and was just working as a
journeyman-for-hire on the occasional action film offered by Hollywood . These newer films redeem him somewhat from
that image; and I think it’s precisely what some of his contemporaries like
John Carpenter and George Lucas should also be doing.
No comments:
Post a Comment