Review of The Big Kahuna

Godot meets Glengary meets Andre meets Rope
5 April 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers herein.

It is truly interesting to see what films successful actors craft for themselves. If it doesn't define the true character, it surely reflects on the core of how they see their art. This is Spacey's creation, and it speaks highly of what he is about.

Spacey and DeVito are not multidimensional actors. That is, they don't present simultaneous views (like say Hoffman and Penn). No, they aren't modern in this sense, instead find a single center and use it to manipulate a thread, instead shifting that thread up into introspection, down into `action,' up again into that space where art meets life. For such actors, the writing is central - everything centers on conversation and focus.

So here, we have a film about conversation; about whether conversations have their own fate; whether directed conversations can be honest, which is the same as exploring the nature of whether acting can be honest. The dialog is in one world at a time, but shifts among acting as being human, acting as being `marketeers,' acting as being actors.

This shift is managed by toggling the focus: the Big Kahuna flips among a key sales target (Fuller, Dick), God, a disembodied Godot called Murdock, and all of three actors.

DeVito is one of the most intelligent film people in Hollywood, going so far as making a comedy from Nabokov (`Momma'). Spacey has focus, and cares to fabricate something that manipulates and tells us so and why.

`If you know what you are doing, you don't have to look like you know what you are doing.'

Put this on the shelf with Andre and Vanya. It is worth experiencing.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed