I've just finished watching One Night Stand. I enjoyed it enough to want to write something and to read what others thought of it.
Wow, some folks sure like to spew their venom! I'm surprised; I'm thankful that someone like Figgis actually has a presence in Hollywood, the home of superficial characters, simplistic plots, and unbelievable dialogue. Figgis doesn't fall into any of these traps.
Instead, he goes against the grain by presenting a character, Max, played by Snipes (who does a superb job at understatement - who knew?) who is not entirely likable. He's arrogant, self-centered, and way-too-impulsive.
Hey, wait a second: how am I going to identify with him? He's not all that slick or heroic (he discovers first-hand that his wife's having an affair and promptly loses her).
But somehow Figgis drew me into the story. And he resisted using predictable ploys. He managed to reveal something important about this self-satisfied guy that turns things upside down: Max is terribly unsatisfied.
Someone commented on the phoney quality of his wife's orgasm. Gee, maybe it wasn't the ACTRESS chewing the scenery, maybe it was the CHARACTER chewing it. D'you think that Mike may actually be sophisticated enough as a Director that he'd ask his ACTRESS to play her CHARACTER, which he scripted, as something of a loud-mouth? Seems plausible.
The segment at the Dinner Party shows the complexity of the characters. During dinner, surrounded by people who are intricately connected with TV, Max makes a statement about the moral and artistic vacuity of the Industry. I mean, its almost as good as Peter Finch's "I'm mad as hell..." speech. (This alone made me admire Figgis and the character he created - a person who bites the hand that feeds him in an act of outrage takes guts!) Later, in the privacy of their bedroom, Max's wife tears into him, accusing him of being arrogant. Well, no, maybe he's just really sick of the way TV twists artists with integrity into hyenas.
Doesn't her reaction help to explain Max's general malaise? He's caught in a career that's not all he thought it would be, that came between him and his best friend (R. Downey, Jr). And now his wife doesn't want to hear him speak critically of it.
Question: Why are we genuinely surprised when we encounter something other than the flattest of characters? Answer: Because we don't recognize what is unfamiliar to us. And complex or nuanced charcters in a Hollywood movie are unfamiliar creatures.
I respect Figgis for giving us characters whose next move you can't predict. It helps me regard the world with more nuance - which is precisely the sort of thing Art should be doing.
Wow, some folks sure like to spew their venom! I'm surprised; I'm thankful that someone like Figgis actually has a presence in Hollywood, the home of superficial characters, simplistic plots, and unbelievable dialogue. Figgis doesn't fall into any of these traps.
Instead, he goes against the grain by presenting a character, Max, played by Snipes (who does a superb job at understatement - who knew?) who is not entirely likable. He's arrogant, self-centered, and way-too-impulsive.
Hey, wait a second: how am I going to identify with him? He's not all that slick or heroic (he discovers first-hand that his wife's having an affair and promptly loses her).
But somehow Figgis drew me into the story. And he resisted using predictable ploys. He managed to reveal something important about this self-satisfied guy that turns things upside down: Max is terribly unsatisfied.
Someone commented on the phoney quality of his wife's orgasm. Gee, maybe it wasn't the ACTRESS chewing the scenery, maybe it was the CHARACTER chewing it. D'you think that Mike may actually be sophisticated enough as a Director that he'd ask his ACTRESS to play her CHARACTER, which he scripted, as something of a loud-mouth? Seems plausible.
The segment at the Dinner Party shows the complexity of the characters. During dinner, surrounded by people who are intricately connected with TV, Max makes a statement about the moral and artistic vacuity of the Industry. I mean, its almost as good as Peter Finch's "I'm mad as hell..." speech. (This alone made me admire Figgis and the character he created - a person who bites the hand that feeds him in an act of outrage takes guts!) Later, in the privacy of their bedroom, Max's wife tears into him, accusing him of being arrogant. Well, no, maybe he's just really sick of the way TV twists artists with integrity into hyenas.
Doesn't her reaction help to explain Max's general malaise? He's caught in a career that's not all he thought it would be, that came between him and his best friend (R. Downey, Jr). And now his wife doesn't want to hear him speak critically of it.
Question: Why are we genuinely surprised when we encounter something other than the flattest of characters? Answer: Because we don't recognize what is unfamiliar to us. And complex or nuanced charcters in a Hollywood movie are unfamiliar creatures.
I respect Figgis for giving us characters whose next move you can't predict. It helps me regard the world with more nuance - which is precisely the sort of thing Art should be doing.
Tell Your Friends