Whitefield at NYFF: Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead

Posted by Peter Smith

Let it not be said that I don’t respect Sidney Lumet. I read his book Making Movies and found it both practical and enlightening. I loved Dog Day Afternoon (who doesn’t?) and Running on Empty. But let’s face facts. Lumet is eighty-three. He made 12 Angry Men in 1957 — fifty years ago!  When you receive a lifetime achievement award at the Oscars, you can probably read that as Hollywood’s polite way of saying, "It’s a wrap." Apparently Mr. Lumet is hard of hearing.

Though not nearly as bad as his last film, Find Me Guilty, Before The Devil Knows You're Dead turns out to be twice as frustrating, as it squanders an outstanding cast and a knockout script. Lumet chose to go the Tarantino/Babel route and skew the story’s narrative timeline, but by doing so he takes all the suspense out of what could have been huge dramatic windfalls by giving you three major (and I mean major) plot twists within the first fifteen minutes. As if that wasn’t crime enough, each time sequence change is signaled by the two frames locking into one another as opposing triangles in a square that click and spin into the next scene. This and the poor film quality make Before The Devil Knows You're Dead look like a made-for-tv movie circa 1991.

A dream cast of Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Albert Finney and a remarkably sexy Marisa Tomei do an admirable job of trying to prop this dog up on four legs, but in the end it’s just too much to ask. The film’s story spirals from tragic family drama of epic proportions into the realm of the absurd, with plot points that are increasingly unbelievable and distracting. The person I feel the worst for is first-time screenwriter Kelly Masterson, who probably thought her dream had come true when she heard Lumet would bring her script to life, only to find herself the victim of an outdated director. I can only imagine the kind of film someone like Rian Johnson (Brick) or Christopher Nolan would have made given the exact same elements. — Bryan Whitefield


Comments

tard said:

I think I may have to see this now simply out of curiousity for how bad it seems to be.

October 11, 2007 3:19 AM

Noel Murray said:

Tard, would if affect your curiosity if you knew that this movie has been widely acclaimed by nearly every other critic? Doesn't negate what Bryan says here, though it might've been worth noting.

I am a little confused though, Bryan: Nearly every complaint you make about the film is related to the plot, and yet you praise the screenplay and blame Lumet. What exactly did Lumet do (or not do) that ruined this script?

If anything, personally, I thought Lumet invested a conventional (if entertaining) crime thriller with a nicely controlled sense of pacing, and an emphasis on natural interactions between the cast and disparate New York locations. I understood that family as much from where they lived and worked and *how* they talked to each other as from anything they actually said.

But then that's just me. And nearly every other critic I know.

October 11, 2007 11:47 AM

blue23 said:

For me it was a pretty simple equation: Script concept = A, Cast's performances = B, Presentation of material = C-.  And in that sense the blame will inevitably point to the director...  

October 11, 2007 12:16 PM

bilge said:

>>he takes all the suspense out of what could have been

>>huge dramatic windfalls by giving you three major (and I

>> mean major) plot twists within the first fifteen

>> minutes.

Bud, did it ever occur to you that Lumet isn't making a heist film? I thought one of the film's (substantial) virtues was that it didn't give us a story about two brothers trying to rob a store, but rather a story about a family falling apart instead. What happens after the robbery is just as important as what happens before it. Lumet gets cast as a genre director unfairly; his real fascination is with watching characters' lives spin out of control. He's not trying to remake THE ANDERSON TAPES or something.

>>As if that wasn’t crime enough, each time sequence change

>>is signaled by the two frames locking into one another as

>>opposing triangles in a square that click and spin into

>>the next scene...

Okay, this is news to me. I saw this film a while before it showed at Toronto or the NYFF. I don't remember such a device. Is it possible he added this in at the last second?

October 11, 2007 1:23 PM

blue23 said:

Well, whoever made the decision to add this rubix-cube type effect to the scene changes should be shot.  It's got to be the cheapest/cheesiest looking device I've seen in any movie in a long, long time.  Absolutely ridiculous...  

October 11, 2007 1:47 PM

Noel Murray said:

I don't recall those changes from TIFF either, for what it's worth.

Blue23, if you're Bryan, I'm still confused. What makes you think that Lumet chose to juggle the timeline? Wouldn't that have been the writer's choice? (Or was something revealed in the Q&A?)

Either way, I think the timeline jumping is really purposeful here. Hoffman's the kind of guy who thinks up the endpoint of his plans before he thinks through the plan itself, and the movie makes him go back and live through the debacle, step-by-step. For the longest time in the movie, I was convinced that the idyllic scene at the start was going to be revealed to be a flash-forward ... instead it's just the moment that haunts and drives him.

October 11, 2007 3:53 PM

in