
Beat the Devil isn't a terrible film, per se, but I'm not sure it completely works as a satire of the genre that Bogart and director John Huston pioneered -- or, if it does, it does so in a way that is lost on a great many people, including myself. The film isn't exactly funny, but that's not the problem: satires, unlike parodies, need not necessarily be funny, but they are supposed to point out the flaws in the things they're satirizing, and in that regard Beat the Devil doesn't so much satirize film noir as it does imitate it in a ridiculous way. I mean, the characters in Beat the Devil are obviously silly, stupid versions of some of the archetypes from cinema in the forties, so I don't agree with the critique that the film misses the mark so completely that it just seems like a bad noir, but at the same time it seems rather directionless, without any real point to make about its chosen subject: why are the characters silly and stupid? What is Capote trying to say? If he's just poking fun at movies like The Maltese Falcon for the sake of poking fun, then he's really doing more of a light parody, but in that case the fact that the film isn't very funny is a problem.
Beat the Devil is the sort of film that would probably benefit greatly from a second viewing, because once you realize the story isn't going anywhere (and was never important in the first place), I suspect it would be easier to sit back and take in the satirical aspects of Capote's writing. The film has certainly gained a cult following in the years since its release among people who consider it both brilliant and misunderstood. I would suggest that the "misunderstood" aspect comes from the muddled message, but I'm also willing to admit that the film has some artistic merit that I'm just not seeing.
Grade: C
No comments:
Post a Comment