The Final Cut
Robin Williams, Mira Sorvino, Jim Caviezel
directed by Omar Naim
In between listening to Shostakovich string quartets and reading Eugene O'Neill's The Iceman Cometh I found time to watch a DVD last night. I don't watch a whole lot of movies these days. I rarely go to the theater. I don't know what's wrong with me, cuz I just don't see all that much on the shelves of the local video/DVD rental store that appeals (the blame for that may fall on the store itself, which doesn't exactly have the most diverse selection). But yesterday I came across a fairly new release on DVD, The Final Cut, that looked promising from the blurb on the back of the box, which read:
Welcome to the not-so-distant future, where implanted microchips record every single moment of a person's life. Upon death, it becomes the job of a "cutter" like Alan Hakman (Oscar-winner Robin Williams) to edit down the deceased's lifetime into a fitting memorial film. For years he has used his god-like power of final cut to absolve the dead of a multitude of sins. But when, on his latest assignment, he views a terrible secret that can't be erased, Hakman finds his own life in jeopardy in this riveting science fiction thriller.
That's a pretty good summary of the film's premise (though I'm not so sure about this "terrible secret that can't be erased" bit). Robin Williams is in fine form as the "cutter" (picking up the mantle of playing the "creepy guy" like he did so well in One Hour Photo and Insomnia). Director Omar Naim has a firm grip on his craft and leaves quite an impression, especially considering that this is a first-time effort.
The Final Cut passed, with flying colors, my test of a film's quality...it was exceptionally thought-provoking. It made me think outside of the film itself in considering the ramifications of having everything one sees (all that memory is made of) recorded and stored for posterity. It also tackles the notion that our memories are not always in alignment with what actually happened, how they can be tainted and completely changed by our own perception as well as our personality.
The "cutter" really does have certain "god-like powers", in that he is privy to EVERYTHING that his/her subject has ever seen and done...the good and the bad. It is the cutter's job to choose the memories that will be shown at the deceased's "rememory", a strange morphing of funeral and cinema in which a relatively short film of their memories (as edited by the cutter in accordance with the family's wishes) is shown for the benefit of family, friends and loved ones.
Can you imagine a life lived with the knowledge that a stranger is going to one day see all that you have done, even the things you don't remember doing? All that you've mentally blocked out will be on display for the cutter to edit. And what kind of person is it that can do this cutter's work, eyewitness to the depths of depravity and sin that everyone, in one way or another, succumbs to at some point in their life? Williams' character, Alan Hakman, is exceptionally successful at his vocation, and you have to wonder if it's because he enjoys his work so much, being a peeping tom staring into the dark side.
But it's not like that. Hakman, by cleaning up the memory-life of others, is only doing something for them that he wishes he could do for himself. For you see, he is tormented by a memory from his own childhood. All his life he has blamed himself for what he remembers as the death of a 10 year old boy who made his acquaintance when he was that age. He sees himself, in his role as cutter, as the modern equivalent of a "sin-eater". The "sin-eater", in ancient tradition, was a social outcast who took on the sins of a dead person through a ritual in which they ate bread and salt placed upon the corpse by relatives, accepting payment for this act by removing coins placed upon the eyes.
Hakman sees himself in this role and justifies himself as one who "forgives people's sins long after they've been punished for them". Perhaps, in so doing, he seeks forgiveness for his own sins. By taking on the burden of the iniquity of so many others, he hopes for atonement (from God?) for what he perceives as the damning transgression he "committed" in his youth.
I won't spoil it and say what happens, but take my word that this really is a "thriller" in the best sense of the word, and that it doesn't rely on what has become the cliched stock-in-trade for these types of movies, the "twist". Oh, there's a bit of a twist in it...I guess that's become the expected norm...but the entire movie does not depend upon it and it doesn't really leave you wanting to see it again with an eye to how the twist plays into it (like, for instance, The Sixth Sense).
You'll want to see it again because the concept is so intriguing and the execution, on behalf of director and cast, is so well done.
This is TRUE science fiction, in the tradition of Memento and Twelve Monkeys. I get so frustrated with the local video store when I look at their sci-fi/fantasy section. It's obvious that their definition of "science fiction" ALWAYS involves outer space and their view of "fantasy" is pretty much boiled down to "a movie starring dragons". They keep the Lord of the Rings trilogy in the Action section (where you can also find Twelve Monkeys, Minority Report and even Starship Troopers...you'd think they'd at least figure that last one into their own scheme of what sci-fi is). The Final Cut, even though the blurb on the box explicitly spells it out for you that this is a SCIENCE FICTION THRILLER, is located in the Drama section (right there with Memento). Okay...so it IS a drama, as opposed to a Comedy or a Horror film, and I guess it didn't pass their credentials as an "action" movie (not enough explosions, I guess).
But take my word for it; as one who has read an awful lot of science fiction (used to love Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine and The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction) I can attest that The Final Cut is science fiction at it's very best. The kind that not only helps you envision the possibilities of the future but also makes you consider the ramifications (moral, ethical & practical) of what those possibilities entail.
If I were using a Five Star rating system, this film would easilly earn 4 and 1/2 stars. I noticed that Siskel and Roeper had both given it the coveted "Thumbs Up", and I would have to agree.
No comments:
Post a Comment