by TheBaxter on Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:13 pm
i saw a movie this weekend called A Rage in Placid Lake.
i really couldn't stand this movie. and the more i think about it, the more i dislike it. first of all, contrary to what the title might lead you to believe, it's not a slasher movie that takes place in a former site of the Winter Olympics. Placid Lake is actually the name of the main character. that was the first thing that made me groan. roger ebert came up with the law of funny names, which is that they are almost never funny, and are a sign of desperation by the screenwriter, and this movie is a perfect example of that law. there's no reason for the character to be named Placid Lake, except to make the strained and obvious metaphor about a person with a lot of anger and rage roiling beneath a seemingly calm surface. sadly, the name was necessary to make that point, because you'd never get it from the story or, especially, from the acting (more on that later). so every time someone referred to the character by name (which was a lot) i winced at the reminder of just how obvious and inept it was.
i think there should be a new rule: no more movies about precociously clever teenagers with quirky or odd names. we've had ferris bueller, we've had napoleon dynamite, we've had juno... i think that's enough. if you're writing a screenplay and your character's name is so incredibly witty and clever that you have to include it in the movie's title... then the name is not nearly as witty or clever as you think it is. and your movie probably isn't as smart or clever as you think it is either. this film was nowhere near as clever as the writer and/or director obviously thought it was.
i guess a basic plot description is in order. basically, "placid" is a high school kid who has just graduated, played by Ben Lee, the funny-looking australian musician, who is a garden-variety "weird kid", non-conformist, whatever you want to call him. his "non-conformity" generally consists of annoying his hippie parents and pissing off the bullies who chase him around and give him beatings, and hanging out with his supersmart nerdy girl friend (not girlfriend, just "girl friend"). after a particularly bad beating, he decides to try to fit in, by getting an office job at an insurance agency. and that's about it. between that description and the title, you can pretty much imagine exactly what this film is, and you'd be right, except it's probably a bit worse than that.
because, for one thing, every single character except the lead and his friend are caricatures and cliches. the hippie parents: check! the school bullies, one of whom is a repressed homosexual: check! the inept boss, the annoying office guy, the cold-as-steel career-shark female co-worker: check! none of these characters have ANY originality or any semblance to a real person, they exist solely to provide something for the lead to bounce off of. and since the lead character is thoroughly unlikeable, that doesn't help. we're obviously supposed to sympathize or relate to him, but since everything he does is completely antagonistic and sometimes just plain mean, you end up rooting for the bullies to beat him up again. the only bright spot is his best friend, gemma, who's played with exceptionally cute geekiness by rose byrne. maybe if the movie was about her, and the other characters were given a semblance of personality, it would've made for a better film.
finally, i have to talk about ben lee. i don't have an opinion on his music one way or another, i've heard some of his stuff, and there are a few songs of his i've liked. but he REALLY needs to stick to music. acting is NOT his thing. the reason a character like ferris bueller works is because, despite being obnoxious and smug, matthew broderick was able to give him enough charm and intelligence to make you root for him. napoleon dynamite, if it worked for you (and it worked for me), it did so because jon heder just totally disappeared inside that character, and however unlikeable he may have been, at least it seemed real. ben lee just doesn't have what it takes to do either. he definitely gets the smug and obnoxious down, but that's it... no charm or any hint of a deeper emotional reality going on. that "rage" that we're supposed to sense beneath his placid surface is never conveyed through the performance. so we're just left with the smug, self-satisfied shell of a person, and a vanity performance by lee. on top of that, ben lee is just funny looking. his face is too long. between that and his "funny" name, it completely distracts from what's going on in the movie.
despite all this, there are a few jokes here and there that work and made me chuckle, and rose byrne was definitely hot and gave a good performance. that's about all the movie had to offer. basically, the lessons everyone involved should take away from this film:
1) if you're writing a screenplay, and you realize one of the characters has a really funny or clever name, and especially if that name also appears in the title... crumple it up, throw it in the trash, and start all over again. it's your only hope.
2) ben lee should never act in another movie ever again.
3) someone out there needs to give rose byrne a decent part in a decent film.
