Posted by: Bradley Redder
First, let me just say that outside of the profoundly silly delivery of "Nevermore," that horseback chase sequence was by far my favorite part of this movie. If the detective sending Poe after the murderer instead of any one of the handful of others far more suited to the task is the set-up, then Poe falling off the horse nine seconds later and emptying his gun into shadows in the mist is the perfect punchline. The only thing it was missing was a few seconds of struggling before Poe could actually mount the horse and take off. It was gloriously dumb, and yet maybe the truest moment in the entire film: Why on Earth would Poe last much longer than that on a horse? Or know how to aim and fire a gun? This might beg the question: "Why am I still criticizing it for being ridiculous and out of place, then?" Because this happens so late in the film, and McTeigue has spent the previous eighty minutes trying to condition the audience into seeing Poe as a Hollywood hero. So, though it does succeed in providing the most entertaining sequence of the entire film, it is a complete failure and falls flat on its face in regard to its actual intent.
Which brings me back to the question I asked you... I was not talking about removing Poe or keeping him. What I'm curious to know is whether you think the more entertaining film would have been a series of weird "Nevermore" lines and goofy horseback scenes, or a more true-to-life depiction of Poe in a darker, more psychologically twisted film in more capable hands. We both agreed that this concept has potential, but potential for what, exactly? It relates to the larger question of Poe's superfluousness in this story. Personally, I think I'm so caught up in wishing that there had been more of these dopey, ham-fisted Poe references that I want the fully-realized goofy version of The Raven. I wanted The Tell-Tale Tambourine. As it stands, it's just about halfway in between: too silly to take seriously, but too labored to provide enough of that silliness for me to have a good enough time.
Though the way you interpreted that question makes me wonder now if it would have been better to scrap Poe altogether. I know it's not really fair to judge a movie based on how true to life or source material it is... I understand and fully stand by dramatic license and all, but at the same time I don't think it's fair, either, to just cut-and-paste an interesting historical figure into a dull script in order to jazz it up without at least putting any of that person's traits into the character. Having Poe ensures a certain expectation that the audience will have, and not delivering on that in any way is not only unfair, but it's also incredibly distracting. I'm supposed to look at this gun-wielding asshole running around after a murderer for ninety minutes and see him as the guy that wrote some of the most fantastic poems and mystery stories I've ever read? Not happening. So, given that this was an obnoxiously bland and poorly constructed film, I have to say that I might have been a little more willing to suspend my disbelief and go with it had the guy been named Steve... Because Steve knows how to ride that fucking horse.
No comments:
Post a Comment