MovieChat Forums > Spartan (2004) Discussion > Great film

Great film

posted 15 years ago by hajj628
6 replies | jump to latest

This is a great film, but I think many people approach it with a misunderstanding, which is forgivable, seeing as how strange a beast this film actually is.

This is a film by David Mamet, whose films are all very similar, despite being in many different genres. Whether his films are superficially "spy thrillers" "romantic comedies" or "heist" films, they are at their heart examinations of people who use the tools of acting and deception in their daily lives. Mamet's characters are most often deceiving others, but are also, in some way, deceiving themselves.

Many people on the boards here have criticized Val Kilmer's performance as wooden, or along those lines. But I think it's important to note that Val Kilmer is playing a character who "acts," who wears personalities like disguises. This is key to understanding the character –that he can become whomever he is ordered to become, but there will remain a level of artificiality to his actions.

Just as actors are often portrayed in film as being overwrought, caricatured, mannered, or wooden, the various personalities Val Kilmer portrays in "Spartan" are all highly mannered, allowing us to ultimately understand the layers of his personality, and who he really is.

Spartan is a highly complicated film, and the story is itself the least interesting part. The real gem of the film is Val Kilmer's multilayered, nuanced performance.

[–] Killer_7_ 15 years ago

Agreed. Was a great movie!

[–] orbis_tertius 15 years ago

I agree that Kilmer gives a great performance, but I disagree as to the reason why. [POSSIBLE SPOILERS]

Kilmer's character is terrible at deception - at using it himself and discerning when he himself is being deceived. His sidekick Curtis demonstrates superior observational and deductive skills several times: first, noticing that the photograph had been moved; second, noticing the "cockeyed" sign on the window; third, questioning the suicide of the secret service agent; fourth, figuring out where Scott hides himself between missions from the chain. From that fourth example I began to think that Scott might be good at on the ground tactics and combat, but he's no good whatsoever at espionage or deception.

Indeed, either he's actually not that smart when it comes to big picture thinking, or he's so invested in thinking of himself as a "worker bee, that he's constantly a few steps behind everybody else in figuring out exactly what is going on. It's a subtlety to his characterization that I missed the first time: when someone says something he can't immediately figure out, he gives them the answer he thinks they want to hear. When Curtis tells him, "I saw the sign," Scott replies, "Then you are truly blessed." He doesn't seem to spend any time analyzing why he was burned and Curtis assassinated, he just reacts on instinct and goes to ground.

When the president's daughter tries to tell him about why her father wants her dead or out of the way forever, Scott insists over and over that he was sent by her father, since he thinks she wants reassurance of her father's love and it's the easiest thing to tell her - he doesn't spend any time thinking about a reason big enough for the president to want to put his daughter out of the way in such a manner.

That's what I like about the characterization in this movie: for all his obvious professionalism, skill, and brutality, Scott is a cog in a machine, through and through. It takes him almost to the very end of the movie to start thinking for himself.

[–] henolf 15 years ago

i agree with all of you. i think it's a conscious and deliberate choice to bring the character across the way he comes across. thats just mamet's style of directing and kilmer is a good actor.

the one thing in the story that bothers me is the scene, when scott has "freed" the convict and they are at the gas station and the convict sees that there is police in the store. "well, okay, lets just stand in front of the window, so the ONLY one who is of our concern can see that the guy is a cop". it's like the only place in the store they CAN'T stand.

curtis is so damn smart, you say, just that little detail you may have overlooked. and that bothers me for the rest of the film, that scene.

it's so stupid, just to get the story going... but other than that, great film. really, it is

[–] hajj628 15 years ago

I definitely agree with the idea of himself being behind the curve –his character arch is solely concerned with him eventually freeing himself, the cog, from the machine, as it were, and to be able to think outside the box. Good thoughts. I'm glad other people appreciate this film as much as I do.

[–] hudson-run-a-bypass 10 years ago

Can't believe the hate for this film not an oscar winner by any stretch but good film

[–] denise1234 10 years ago

I think people either have a good appreciation of Mamet or they don't.

His particular style, such as his intentional dialogue rhythms, are not always easily accessible to a casual viewer.

I love his films, including this one.

There is commentary by Val Kilmer with the DVD of this film, and once you parse through Kilmer's clever humor and bits of witty sarcasm, he does a good job here and there explaining some of Mamet's style.

There is a lot of subtext/substance to Mamet's filmmaking that's not easily picked up on by an untrained eye or even upon first viewing by someone more familiar with his style.

The more I read about the 'hows' and the 'whys' of his filmmaking, I appreciate his works even more.

But his works require some unpacking and some viewers just want simple entertainment and don't want to think their way through a movie, and that's fair.

But that doesn't mean that his films are not good.

I always look forward to when a new Mamet film is released

~~ The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what fiction means ~ ~ Oscar Wilde