After learning that a boy their age has been accidentally killed near their rural homes, four Oregon boys decide to go see the body. On the way, Gordie, Vern, Chris and Teddy encounter a mean junk man and a marsh full of leeches, as they also learn more about one another and their very different home lives. Just a lark at first, the boys' adventure evolves into a defining event in their lives.
27 Jan Stand by Me (1986)
What Happened to Lardass?
The first duty of a filmmaker is to worry about how to transport the viewer into the special world they have in mind. The hard way to do this is by devising a very strong narrative. Expert filmmakers then worry about the identity of the camera.
The simple way to do it is to just evoke a feeling, the bane of countless genre films. But sometimes you can strike gold by making ‘personal’ films. Here is about the only one I can recall that works. It’s very risky.
This is a highly abstract film. Essentially nothing happens. The four characters exist without much visual reference to the rest of the world: some punks drift in and out, a junkyard worker, few others. Four characters, boys who are young enough to behave exactly as stereotypes and not have the audience revolt. The stereotypes go through just what one would expect, but that doesn’t matter because that’s not where the value is: it is all in the very fresh here and now and the dialog that creates the ephemeral moment.
Lots and lots of great one-liners. That’s the magic of this project.
Reiner knows this, or perhaps King. (I haven’t read the story.) That’s the point of the story within the story. The story has no real story to it, only a mood. If this were real boys it would be a diarrhoea joke, but vomit is good enough. Reiner follows the hard rule that the story within the story has to be abstracted from the movie the same distance that the movie is from real life. Check out the berry connection.
The comment from the listening boys is an inside joke: ‘but what happens to Lardass?’ That story is the same type as this one. It is all about situation, not movement. All about not growing up, not about growing up. All about the moments, not the consequences of those moments: the junk man will call their Dads. The thugs will threaten violence. None of the boys will keep the secret of the body.
Since we are relieved of the consequences, of the very notion of dynamic narrative, we can steep in an artificial zen of remembered childhood. It works.
The only blot is Richard Dreyfuss whose job it is to frame this and provide the bridge to ‘reality.’ What’s needed is a writer’s stance, someone who lives in the frame, not the framed. Instead, Dreyfuss places himself in the world of the kids. But his posturing, all his mechanical acting just dumps the stereotypes of the kids on his shoulders and on him it is not charming. The right stance would be that of Michael Douglas at the end of ‘Wonder Years.’
Posted in 2002
Ted’s Evaluation — 3 of 3: Worth watching.
No Comments