Before I watched it all the way through, it
had been something of a mystery to me. "Why was this
film was never released theatrically?" I wondered. It
was directed by long-time Hollywood insider Paul
Shrader, one of the industry's best screenwriters, who
wrote three Martin Scorsese masterpieces, including Taxi
Driver and Raging Bull. It stars Joseph "Shakespeare"
Fiennes, backed by Ray Liotta and Gretchen Mol. It was
shown in Toronto and Telluride. And when was the last
time you saw a straight-to-cable film in a 2.35:1 aspect
ratio?
Lots of plusses. So what went wrong?
I now see why nobody took a chance on this film. Yes,
there was a problem involving the bankruptcy of the
company that owned the film, but that wasn't the only
reason why it wasn't picked up theatrically at some time
or another. The film itself has some real problems.
First, it has some audio problems, with both the clarity
and the volume variations, but that wasn't the Big
Chestnut. More entertainingly, let's have film cliché
class. Test your own knowledge:
1. Ray Liotta plays
a. A priest committed to working with the urban poor.
b. A weaseling small time mobster
c. A wacky Miami comic
d. A sensitive, loving husband
2. Shakespeare plays
a. A romantic, love-smitten fool, making love eyes
throughout the film, and hopelessly in love with
Liotta's wife
b. A hard-boiled detective with cold, ironic eyes who
has been hired by Liotta to find a missing person
c. A charismatic adventurer hoping to have Liotta bank
his expedition
d. A Royal Canadian Mountie pursuing Liotta for Canadian
crimes.
3. When Liotta finds out that Shakespeare is making
nice-nice with his wife, he:
a. says, "let her decide which of us she loves"
b. gets drunk and remorseful for making all the mistakes
which drove his wife into another's arms.
c. talks to him calmly and says that the three of them
need to figure out an adult solution
d. whacks him
4. When Shakespeare gets shot in the face and buried
alive, he
a. goes to hell
b. goes to heaven
c. remains a fond memory in her heart always
d. miraculously claws his way free and makes it to a
friend's house
5. Shakespeare then
a. knows all is lost, goes back to his job as a cabana
boy
b. remembers her all his life
c. resolves to find another woman, preferably one
unattached, but if attached, not attached to a mobster.
d. joins with his friend in the drug business, and
becomes a far bigger mobster than Liotta
6. When Liotta later gets in trouble with the law,
Shakespeare
a. helps him out, on the condition that he leave his
wife
b. whacks him
c. whacks him and the wife
d. ignores him and the wife
7. When Liotta figures out that the drug lord and the
cabana boy are both Shakespeare, and that his wife still
loves the guy, he
a. asks him to compose a love sonnet for his wife
b. says he is sorry about the past
c. whacks him again
d. bows out gracefully, makes his best deal, and moves
on
8. When Shakespeare gets shot in the neck and thigh, and
appears to be whacked a second time, he
a. goes to hell
b. goes to heaven
c. remains a fond memory in her heart always
d. miraculously musters up enough strength to save the
wife from Liotta's grasp, and kill Liotta
So there you have it. Their love endures despite the
fact that they didn't see each other for 14 years, and
the even more important fact that Shakespeare died
twice. I guess I wouldn't have minded all the
unrealistic clichés so much, but the story also
moves with a very slow pace, which makes it difficult to
watch, and the film has some sound problems.
Despite all that, I recommend it, and I personally would
pay to see it on a big screen.
Why? Here's my logic
First of all, Gretchen Mol gets naked three times, the
first two times in good light. The movie doesn't seem so
bad at all when viewed in that context.
And one more important thing: Cinematographer John
Bailey did a magnificent, Oscar-worthy job on this film!
It looks great. The first half takes place in Miami in
1973. I lived in Miami in the early 70's, and this film
caught the feel of it so beautifully that I could smell
the Cafe Cubano, hear the Jai-Alai cheers, and feel the
sea breezes. The pastels, the faded glory of the hotels,
the neon lights, the whole palette.
Sometimes it is important to give credit where credit is
due. Cinematographers often have to sit back and watch
their best work ignored because the script just isn't
much good. A perfect example is The Patriot, from a
couple of years back. That movie is photographed about
as well as a movie can be, and cinematographer Caleb
Deschanel was recognized by his fellow cinematographers
as the king of the hill that year in their association
awards. The Oscar, however, went to another film. Has
there ever been a case where the Oscars overlooked a
crap script and gave the cinematographer his just due? I
suppose not. I can't think of one, but that would happen
in a fairer world. After all, it wasn't Caleb's fault
that the Patriot's script wasn't that good.
And John Bailey can't be blamed for Forever Mine's
script.
For Bailey, the results were far more depressing than
for Deschanel, because nobody ever saw Bailey's work
projected on the big screen after the film festivals.
That's really a shame. This film was meant to be
projected in a 2.35 aspect ratio which simply can't be
appreciated anywhere except a big screen. Of course,
Bailey didn't know it would go straight-to-cable when he
filmed it in that super widescreen ratio.
By the way, this work was no isolated fluke for Mr.
Bailey, as you might guess. He has never won an Oscar,
or even a nomination, but he's shot some very fine films
in his career. He probably should have been nominated
for an Oscar for his work on The Big Chill, and he has
shot some terrific offbeat stuff, like Cat People and
Groundhog Day.
So, a strong "well done" for Mr Bailey, for work that
few people will ever see.
