Coffee and Cigarettes with Blackjack and a Film for Tarantino
It’s strange how a film that half consists of a compilation of student scenes with conversations in a cafe or at a playing table (written at a workshop level, tho) can lead to absolutely extraordinary emotional reactions and moral assessments.
Playing in a casino is like working in an office with a 5/2 schedule of 8 hours a day. And if the first casino talk looks like you're listening to an Ocean's 11 Friends heist plan, then it's routine. And you get used to this routine, listen to jazz, in long shots with the characters quietly walking between the tables with blackjack, believe in their absolute control over the situation, wait for an adventurous movie about cards for two hours and suddenly
All this turns into a complex story about the relationship between father and son and all the amazing circumstances that you took for cinematic conventions, and local attempts to unusually tell ordinary things (for example, as the circumstances of the acquaintances of the main characters at the very beginning of the film), begin to explain.
And the great thing about all these revealed twists and turns (which, after all, I better not spoil), is that they all lead to results, to which, in fact, you can put optional (but implied) questions. On the one hand, ‘Character A has aligned with character B and seems happy’, but on the other hand, ‘Find out the truth.’ . . '.
Anderson always writes scripts based on characters, not plots. Therefore, his characters here are expectedly charismatic and unexpectedly worked out (for the debut film). Possibly like nowhere else. Just because in "Eight" any interesting features of his characters are very functional and not for beauty. It is amazing how unobtrusive questions about the characters of people in the frame affect the plot.
I will explain through Tarantino’s claim to the movie Boogie Nights. In one scene, an experienced filmmaker watches a porn film about the police, which is obviously bad and says that "maybe it's the best thing I've done." For Tarantino, this is an obvious lie and a weak spot in the script. Well, an experienced specialist can not distinguish the good from the bad.
It's the opposite in Eight. All professional household and investigative relations of everyday life are configured as a complex mechanism. And this mechanism produces not stupid documentary, but highly artistic and layered history. Simple in retelling, but oversaturated with interesting details that can give an attentive viewer reason to admire.
This film was the eighth, so far the last, of the filmography of the great Paul Thomas Anderson, while for him it was the first. And hence all the problems: cinema touches on the eternal problems for the director - fathers and children, devoted friends and knocking love. However, it does not do it graciously, minimally frankly.
The plot is very uneven, but not in a good way, like Tarantino. I do not share the opinion that it is impossible to break away from the film, but in defense I will say that the plot is remembered for a long time, just like the dialogue. No unity of place that could make the film a little more chambered, and the transition in time is not explained. How did John reach the heights shown in Act Two? I don't understand. Absolutely not disclosed the theme with the casino after the first act, in which it was one of the few good features of the picture.
The film draws undoubtedly acting, as in all the films of the author, it is at the highest level. John Christopher Riley and Gwyneth Paltrow may show the best of their career emotions, and Philip Baker Hall and Sam Jackson create the only dramatic intensity of the film.
I’m a huge fan of Paul Thomas Anderson, and I think that all films except this one (and possibly, Congenital Vice 39, etc.) are a must-see. I will not recommend or not recommend 'Fatal Eight', but my opinion seems to be unpopular. Trust your taste and make up your mind.
The first full-length film directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, who previously shot only two short films ("The Dirk Diggler Story and Cigarettes & Coffee) with his already almost permanent cameraman Robert Elsweet, under a simple and concise original title.
- "Sydney" Over time, the film was called Hard Eight, although the director himself gave it the name Sydney. (We have most often translated as "Fatal Eight").
The film, with a budget of approximately $ 3 million, tells the story of acquaintance in a cafe and further friendship, which eventually develops into a personal drama, between a rather poor, small and unlucky player John C. Riley and a very successful, cautious and circumspect casino regular named Sydney, well played by Philip Baker Hall. Also in the film there are excellent actors in supporting roles, such as Samuel L. Jackson, Gwyneth Paltrow and Philip Seymour Hoffman, who will be frequent guests in the films of P. T. Anderson. I will refrain from writing about the characters of these actors in order to avoid spoilers.
I try to write as little as possible about the plot itself, because there is nothing to write, the plot of this picture can be described in two lines. Sydney decided to help John solve his financial problems, everything went calmly and measured, until the end. Approximately the same is usually written in the synopsis of this film, without deepening, spoilers and revealing the finale.
By the middle of the film, the plot completely sags and saves it with only a good twist towards the end of the picture. But even at the same time, Anderson was able to make a film with a very simple and slow-moving plot and almost entirely built on dialogue, it was interesting to watch, and of course, it is impossible not to mention his signature style of shooting and presentation, which he later elevated to absolute. (Pr. “Magnolia”, “Boogie Nights” “Oil”).
Not without the usual in future films “too emotional” acting. Sometimes the actors in his films give such emotions that if it was another film, everyone would immediately say - overplay, but he has such moments look very authentic, as if it was impossible to do otherwise.
I would recommend this film primarily to fans of independent auteur cinema and fans of the director’s work, but the mass audience – the film may not come. Somewhere to seem too burdensome, although its timekeeping is less than two hours, and somewhere too monotonous, but if you are ready for this, then the film most likely will not disappoint you, although it will not particularly amaze you.
As a result, if you remove all other factors and regard this picture as an independent product, then unfortunately I can not put a rating above 7, but as the first serious work of one of the best non-mainstream directors of our time – bravo.
7 out of 10
The key picture for understanding the main leitmotif of Paul Thomas Anderson’s work, a modest bridge for transfer, through which the growing level of the director’s production from film to film becomes clear, however, not always finding a worthy application, descending to the demonstration of the dirty heels of Joaquin Phoenix. Well, before them, the director-debutant with already great habits and claims to the author is limited to a rather hermetic space, where there is no place yet brazenly punching her Altman plot branches, time flows anywhere, but does everything possible to bypass the heroes of this story, and their number is strictly kept in a minimum ratio relative to - again - other works of Anderson.
Night is approaching - the constant companion of this story - in the form of an obscure silhouette, stepping aside to a rather shabby-looking guy lying at the entrance in front of a cafe. The guy does not yet know what future he promises, and certainly not aware of what winds of the past brought him. Soon, the guy under the patronage of the newly announced Master gets the opportunity to have at least some support in this world under the guise of slot machines, and before that, a completely weightless plot adds in volume, including two characters in a short period - one as if random with a non-randomly expressive face of Samuel L. Jackson and a rather caustic twisted image of a fatal woman with the face of Gwyneth Paltrow. In Anderson, it also brings failure, but in large part because of the mind not much invested in the head of nature.
And everything would be fine, because everything is convincing, Anderson mesmerizingly watches a smoky plume from a cigarette sliding over a cup of coffee, and the operator with some phenomenal melancholy leads the participants from one little scenery to another. But Anderson did not find a powerful patron, you can not see here a dramatically strong hand over everything, like Orson Welles, comparisons with which any film critic did not disdain, remaining impressed with “Oil”. And watching the progress of the Author – it becomes quite obvious that he was moving just to this kind of films: that each frame cast a monolith, the characters were burning with life, the space and air around were tangible and breathless, and situations responded in the head with a crunch from a collision with her heavy pin.
In the meantime, there's Sydney. Demonstratively modest story with great ambitions of the author, severely constrained in the scenery of unassuming hotels and casinos. Anderson is not able to delve into his characters, bypasses their relationship with short lines, and acute situations are the simplest and inventive ways. The very story of the director is the story of an attempt to find himself: in order to avoid the collision of his viewer with emptiness, he goes on to pretentiously overpopulated films in which the function of scoring holes is taken by stupidly hysterical people, and all this only to soon grow to the degree of a lion, which no longer has to resort to artificial amplifiers. But even in light of all of the above, it's still an unspeakable pleasure to watch an old gangster walking busily towards a diner. The PTA knew a lot about it then.
This film ended my acquaintance with the work of the great Paul Thomas Anderson. In the sense that I have seen all his works and can more or less soberly judge. Anderson is a realist, he digs into human souls, he manages the turning events in the plot perfectly, and his characters are written one hundred percent. Besides, the heroes are not alike. He’s got a cast of people he’s used to working with. Among them are Philip Seymour Hoffman, John C. Riley, Philip Baker Hall. When you watch Anderson’s movies, these actors will be like family. Between them and the director of a kind of “bridge of understanding”.
Directly about the movie. Regarding the other films of Anderson, the timing of The Fatal Eight is very small, but this does not prevent us from comprehensively immersed in the story. It proceeds quietly and slowly, but the characters do not leave indifferent, because of this we pay all our attention to what we have. For this, we are rewarded with a great turning point. Real movie lovers love this kind of thing, and tend to miss it in the beginning. In this case, for example, I didn’t think about it at all, I just enjoyed it. Considering that this is the director's debut work - you will be very surprised how professional everything looks here.
Philip Baker Hall was very pleased with the game - he is undoubtedly the main character of the picture, but other screen time is enough. His hero is incredibly attractive and kind, with his "skeletons in the closet" - in general, a beautiful hero. John C. Riley - in the film too, looked great and very convincing, his character is also attractive and the duet with Hall looked perfect. For amateurs, Samuel L. Jackson also has something, he has enough time on the screen, and plays as if he is not tired as he is now. It's very interesting to see him. Overall, the cast is great and they did the right thing. Paul Thomas Anderson is distinguished by his ability to get from actors what you really need.
The film is relatively old, but do not forget that modern filmmakers borrowed a lot from the early works of masters such as Paul Thomas Anderson - hence, I want to say that the "Fatal Eight" is a small, but very high-quality and interesting work, with a beautiful plot, actors, cinematography, which is as good as in other films of Anderson. For the debut of such a director, the film is incredible. I recommend it to everyone without exception, he definitely gets into the list of favorites.
10 out of 10
