Thursday 24 January 2008

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)


Oh, how long I waited to see this, in eager anticipation for well over a year. So, the question is...was it worth the wait?

The story focuses on the final year of the life of one of America's most infamous, and most controversial, figures, Jesse James before...well, the title kind of tells you the rest. James, depending on who you speak to, was a cold-blooded murderer, a bandit, a philanthropist, a madman, a Robin Hood type character who took from the rich and gave to the poor and an American hero. All these aspects - and many more besides - are captured by the film and by Brad Pitt's outstanding performance in the titular role.

It is difficult to know where to begin with this. Pitt and Casey Affleck (Robert Ford) are both outstanding and deliver 10/10 list-busting performances. For me, Pitt just edges it and that is not in any way a criticism of Affleck, or of the other cast members, to whom I'll return. What's most impressive about Pitt's performance is the gravitas and the depth he lends to the character. James stalks every scene with his aura and charisma. They say you can tell when a great person enters a room and the atmosphere changes and somehow this effect (which I can genuinely believe the historical James possessed) is captured on film. The tension, and James' presence in every room, is palpable and only increases as James becomes more and more unstable, paranoid, and neurotic as the film drifts on. That's a real testament to Pitt, but also to the ensemble cast who are obviously vital in capturing so difficult an essence to bottle. All are excellent, though a particular mention in dispatches must go to the underrated Paul Schneider (as the philandering Dick Liddil) and, especially, to Sam Shepard who plays Frank James, Jesse's almost equally notorious older brother. Sadly, the elder James disappears to early and Schneider is underused. Parts of this actually feel like the Thin Red Line in the way characters flow in and out of the movie as naturally as the light lays on the tips of the Missouri corn on the prairies depicted in the film's most beautiful moments.

Which brings me on to the cinematography. It has to be seen to be believed. I'm not sure I've ever seen such a beautiful film, with its harrowing depictions of wide open, sun-kissed, beauty entwined with bleak, snowy, landscapes that foreshadow James' darkening mood and his ever-shrinking world. Utterly stunning in the way that it encapsulates everything the film seems to be about. Roger Deakins has deservedly been nominated for best cinematography. Will he win? Well, after Saving Private Ryan won in 1999 ahead of the Thin Red Line, I lost what little remaining faith I had in the Oscars to reward quality film making. It would be a crime if Deakins didn't win. Casey Affleck has also been nominated for Best Supporting Actor and would be a worthy winner.

Another excellent thing about this film is that at least the first hour and a half disappears without any kind of plot whatsoever. It's all about life and the characters who make it up. Only half way in does a recognisable plot (as such) begin to develop and that is a huge positive as you are free, during the first part of the film, to invest in the deep and layered characters being presented to you on screen.

If truth be told, there is much more than this to recommend this film but it must be seen to be truly and fully appreciated. It's brilliant. I could have watched on for much longer in the company of these characters and the performers who depict them so brilliantly. An true example of master craftsmen, director, actors, cinematographer, musicians (and many more), at the top of their game and working in harmony to create a spellbinding and sublime whole. If you haven't already (and if you can find a cinema that's showing it) go and see this.

A+

3 comments:

Adam said...

Great review.

Deakins hasn't had the sort of rewards he should ahve for someone so brilliant. No accident that we both focused heavily on him in our reviews of this. Just terrific work from someone who should have racked up double the number of career nominations that he actually has and who should have a small army of awards by now. Really hope he starts by winning for this.

Oh and your completely wrong about Pitt being better than Affleck! ;o)

Unknown said...

so how long is this flick?

you mentioned ' the first hour and a half...'

I always think that if a film can;t make it's point in 100 mins or less then what's the point.

I cite 'Wyatt Earp' as an example...

Matt said...

It's about 2: 45 minutes.

Is film making all about making a point? The great thing about this is that it didn't, for me at least, have a particular point to make, it just allowed you to be indulged in a deep, layered and ultimately enchanting world inhabited by fantastically interesting, multi-dimensional characters. That is what great filmmaking is about in my opinion.

Haven't seen Wyatt Earp I'm afraid, but have been warned to stay clear!