Tuesday, October 28, 1997
Don’t judge Keanu based on past poor experiences
REVIEW Harris’ column misses good points of "The Devil’s
Advocate"
By Christopher Coleman
It is a pity that Lonnie Harris spoils a well-written review of
"The Devil’s Advocate" (Oct. 17) by patronizing Keanu Reeves in
deference to the buzz bugs who delight in disparaging him.
Mr. Reeves is an actor of unique ability. A proper appreciation
of him requires attentive viewing and a creative engagement with
each performance. His habitual understatement is always balanced by
a subtle and sensitive expression that brings a warm humanity to
the characters he portrays.
Another constant is the integration of his roles into the
dramatic texture of each film, concealing his technique in a way
that gives his performances so transparent a quality that he hardly
seems to be acting at all.
This is what all good actors strive for but that only a few ever
achieve as regularly as Keanu. Of course this cannot please the
quick-to-criticize, hamburger mentality.
As to the film itself: Mr. Harris faults its "unnatural
conclusion" for "kill(ing) all the momentum heading into the film’s
denouement." Film has accustomed us to accept the supernatural in
the context of realism – angels on the big and little screens are
becoming as common as cowboys once were.
But realism is only one approach. "The Devil’s Advocate" uses
another: the morality play. Interestingly, the approach is made via
retrospective reflection. For virtually its entire length, the film
runs along realistic lines, building to a long scene that offers as
much traditional catharsis as anyone could reasonably want – or
need.
The abrupt change of pace at the film’s end jolts us into
realizing that we have been watching a morality all along, and that
Lomax, the central character, is every modern man. The problems and
difficulties raised by the story are now resolved, as they are seen
to have grown out of the guilt that Lomax inherits from his
Bible-belt upbringing, from the prospect of wrong-doing (the film
is a "what if" story) and the carnal desires – greed, pride,
selfishness, lust – that lurk in his character as real
temptations.
Alone in a totally deserted New York City, he confronts the
devil, for he is, in fact, confronting the evils in himself.
For a man like him, evil assumes a human face, which makes him a
fitting hero for morality.
"The Devil’s Advocate" succeeds as a mixed genre work, attaining
its purpose with admirable wit and a sure but light touch, leaving
the audience with something to ponder, something worth thinking
about. It amply supplies what Horace looked for: pleasure and
profit. This is unusual in a large studio production.
Lonnie Harris writes well, and I look forward to reading future
criticisms. I hope he will not mind my suggestion to avoid the
common critical pitfall: deciding on the basis of past experience
what should happen in a film and condemning it for going in another
direction.
It’s best to follow where the action leads, evaluate it by its
own implied purpose, and examine the performances within that
context. That is, for me, a more enjoyable and creative
approach.