Klute
Although the film's title character is played by Donald Sutherland, it is Jane Fonda's Bree Daniel who is central to the story in Klute, a fine, gritty picture by Alan J. Pakula, released in 1971. Fonda won her first Academy Award for portraying the flinty prostitute who aids a small-town investigator on a missing person case.
The film is a terrific representation of 70s cinema--dark (photographed by Gordon Willis, known as the "prince of darkness") and a bit sleazy--filmed on location in New York, specifically Harlem. The sets and costumes, contemporary at the time, now have a vintage look to them, and you can practically smell the garbage in the streets.
Fonda is a call girl, as prostitutes were called back then. She is linked to a businessman who goes missing, and his friend, a buttoned-down fellow from a small town in Pennsylvania, comes to New York to find him. Fonda, her dialogue sharp and urban, initially balks, but Sutherland, stoic and unyielding, persists. Fonda, her life in jeopardy from the person who may have harmed Sutherland's friend, finally agrees.
We then get a somewhat routine procedural mystery, as Sutherland, with Fonda in tow, tracks down clues. Of course this odd couple eventually forms an attachment, which I didn't buy. The problem is less to do with Fonda--her character is deeply developed--than with Sutherland. His character is defined only by what Fonda thinks of him--we have no idea what he is about otherwise. I think this was intentional, leaving the viewer to fill in gaps, but I'm not entirely sure this is successful.
Fonda is wonderful. She dominates the film, getting a lot of choice scenes, such as those with her pyschologist, when she confesses she'd like to quit the business but is drawn to it because it allows her to be in control and act the part (she would like to become a legitimate actress). Then, at the end of the film, Pakula has her sit still for a two-or-three minute unbroken take in which she listens to a tape of a prostitute being murdered. It's a very powerfully acted scene.
Pakula's direction is top notch, with the camera always just where it should be. The mystery itself isn't much--there's really no suspect but one--instead the film works as a character study and in retrospect as a slice of film history.
The film is a terrific representation of 70s cinema--dark (photographed by Gordon Willis, known as the "prince of darkness") and a bit sleazy--filmed on location in New York, specifically Harlem. The sets and costumes, contemporary at the time, now have a vintage look to them, and you can practically smell the garbage in the streets.
Fonda is a call girl, as prostitutes were called back then. She is linked to a businessman who goes missing, and his friend, a buttoned-down fellow from a small town in Pennsylvania, comes to New York to find him. Fonda, her dialogue sharp and urban, initially balks, but Sutherland, stoic and unyielding, persists. Fonda, her life in jeopardy from the person who may have harmed Sutherland's friend, finally agrees.
We then get a somewhat routine procedural mystery, as Sutherland, with Fonda in tow, tracks down clues. Of course this odd couple eventually forms an attachment, which I didn't buy. The problem is less to do with Fonda--her character is deeply developed--than with Sutherland. His character is defined only by what Fonda thinks of him--we have no idea what he is about otherwise. I think this was intentional, leaving the viewer to fill in gaps, but I'm not entirely sure this is successful.
Fonda is wonderful. She dominates the film, getting a lot of choice scenes, such as those with her pyschologist, when she confesses she'd like to quit the business but is drawn to it because it allows her to be in control and act the part (she would like to become a legitimate actress). Then, at the end of the film, Pakula has her sit still for a two-or-three minute unbroken take in which she listens to a tape of a prostitute being murdered. It's a very powerfully acted scene.
Pakula's direction is top notch, with the camera always just where it should be. The mystery itself isn't much--there's really no suspect but one--instead the film works as a character study and in retrospect as a slice of film history.
Comments
Post a Comment