The Human Stain (2003)

Read now at Helium.com.

I very much like Nicole Kidman and Anthony Hopkins, and Gary Sinise for that matter. And all do a great job as they always do, though Kidman, thanks to Robert Benton not knowing when to cut when she's on camera, crosses the line for the first time from "tragic" to "self-pitying"(I'm thinking of the heavy-handedly symbolic scene with the "crow that doesn't know how to be a crow", where she goes on WAY too long after the point has been beaten to death). So why did I get so mad when watching this?

Let's just leave aside the Roth book, which I've not read, and look at this movie as a MOVIE, period.

I suppose, firstly, because so few films deal with the subject of PC madness(OLEANNA dealt with it far better), the fact this film starts off running with it--and quite well--and then mostly just drops the thread after that, I was offended at the cheap use of the subject to give a boost to what ultimately is just a rather bland, barely tragic doomed-love story.

Second, it doesn't know what kind of movie it wants to be--except that you can tell it wants to be an Oscar-winning one. This is exactly the kind of film one expects between November and February, after all. It jumps around with no rhyme or reason, not concluding scenes so much as losing interest in them. The film has a kind of deadly slow ADD. The attempt might be a fractured chronology, but Robert Benton really doesn't have the chops to hold such a thing together. It seems merely poorly edited and structured. One loses the threads(there are two or three major ones) of the plot very, very quickly--I stopped caring about this movie about 35 minutes in. So what if it's an important subject? This isn't a prescription; you have to convince me this story is worthwhile. But indeed, this is the sort of film that thinks it's owed respect before you go in.

Thirdly, I never cared for any of its characters at all. And no attempt was made to give me any reason why. That's not necessary in all films but it is in this case--if we don't care about Coleman Silk, why then should we care if his life was destroyed? Young or old, he simply comes across as a selfish jerk regardless of his rightness, and we're supposed to sympathize with him solely because he was dealt two horrible injustices.

The ending has a very bitter, "stuck for an ending" quality that reminded me of the hideous, pointless ending of Breillat's FAT GIRL, and angered me--for the wrong reasons, and at the filmmakers, not Kidman's crazed ex-hubby--greatly.

Why watch this? Well, the camera does love Nicole and she does her usual excellent job. (Matter of fact, the camera not only loves her, it gives up everything for her from the moment she appears--which is part of the problem) If you like Kidman, as I do, watch this once. Unless the sight of Kidman having sex with the paunchy, aged Anthony Hopkins is enough to put you off all meals forever, let alone lose your lunch.

A very dumb movie done by very talented people. Not enjoyable, not profound, not tragic--barely even really there. And as far as its Oscar-bait quality--well, looks like the fish weren't biting.

Bad movie. No biscuit.