David Mamet wrote and directed this film about the "oldest con in the book." The title comes from a con described in the film, in which two con artist pretend to be rich and in trouble and need help, they then take the money and run, no favors returned like assumed by the victim. This movie starts off slow and then starts to mess with your head as the main character get "played for a fool." Knowing the film is about a con only makes the audience think everything is a conspiracy (oops, I just let you know so now, oh well, anyway...). It does have some interesting things to say about perceptions and how we see things, which in the end maybe just other peoples lies, but then can anyone be trusted? The film does have the aspect of being some what realistic, the audience my know how to cover up a murder but in real life we don't usually think about it in the panic of the moment. Living between wisdom and folly involves the right amount of trust and suspicion, and the development of discernment (in other words, a good bullshit detector).
August 04, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The movie's best con is how the WHOLE MOVIE IS A CON. Think about this: how do you know that feds at the end are feds? Mamet is a master with wordplay, and this film highlights this.
The film ends rather abruptly, and the process has not been retrieved so it could all be the con. This also has the effect of making the audience cease to care. It shows how the director is in charge of the story and the perceptions of the scenes in the film. It points out the manipulation possible by the filmmaker.
Post a Comment