Introduction

What is The New Yorker? I know it’s a great magazine and that it’s a tremendous source of pleasure in my life. But what exactly is it? This blog’s premise is that The New Yorker is a work of art, as worthy of comment and analysis as, say, Keats’s “Ode on a Grecian Urn.” Each week I review one or more aspects of the magazine’s latest issue. I suppose it’s possible to describe and analyze an entire issue, but I prefer to keep my reviews brief, and so I usually focus on just one or two pieces, to explore in each the signature style of its author. A piece by Nick Paumgarten is not like a piece by Jill Lepore, and neither is like a piece by Ian Frazier. One could not mistake Collins for Seabrook, or Bilger for Goldfield, or Mogelson for Kolbert. Each has found a style, and it is that style that I respond to as I read, and want to understand and describe.

Wednesday, March 24, 2021

March 8, 2021 Issue

Normally I’m allergic to play-based movies. I find them static, airless, boxed-in. One exception is Mike Nichols’ Closer (2004), starring Jude Law, Natalie Portman, Clive Owen, and Julia Roberts. There’s an excellent capsule review of it by Anthony Lane in this week’s “Goings On About Town.” Lane writes,

Patrick Marber adapted his own hit play of the same name, and gave a lucky director, Mike Nichols, a script that he could chew on. Peel away the carnal talk and what’s left—the bone structure of the piece—resembles Noël Coward’s “Private Lives.” We get two interlocking couples: Dan (Jude Law), a writer who falls in love with Alice (Natalie Portman), a stripper, and Larry (Clive Owen), a doctor who marries a photographer named Anna (Julia Roberts). The transactions are quick and brutal: Dan has anonymous online sex with Larry and a yearlong affair with Anna, Alice leaves Dan and starts working at a night club, Larry finds her there and tells her precisely what he wants, and nobody is happy. The film is more civilized than the play, the acid slightly diluted, and Law, for one, looks eaten away by the bitter pace of it all. Roberts, too, is haunted and pained, whereas Portman and Owen drink and spit their lines with undiminished relish, often at speeds that Nichols can barely handle.

That “The film is more civilized than the play, the acid slightly diluted, and Law, for one, looks eaten away by the bitter pace of it all” is very good. It’s a new line; it doesn’t appear in the review of Closer that Lane wrote seventeen years ago: see “Partners” (The New Yorker, December 13, 2004). The earlier piece has its pleasures, too, e.g., “People share here, but they share betrayals and bodily fluids as if they were viral strains,” and “Larry’s gibes are guided like missiles, and the meanest of them is unanswerable: ‘You writer.’ ”

 Lane’s reviews spur me to see this great Nichols film again.

No comments:

Post a Comment