★ 1 / 10
Phil Spector begins by warning us that “This
tmdb28039023
Phil Spector begins by warning us that “This is a work of fiction. It is not based on a true story. It is a drama inspired by real people in a trial, but it is…
Phil Spector begins by warning us that “This is a work of fiction. It is not based on a true story. It is a drama inspired by real people in a trial, but it is not an attempt to represent the real people, nor to comment on the trial or its outcome.”
This raises several questions. First, if it’s not an attempt to represent real people, why are the characters named after real people? Are you trying to tell me that this is a movie about a record producer charged with murder named Phil Spector, but it's not a movie about actual record producer charged with murder Phil Spector?
Second, the fictional Phil Spector is indicted for the murder of actress and model Lana Clarkson, just like the real Phil Spector; how then can the movie claim that it’s not based on a true story? Third, if it’s not an attempt to comment on the trial or its outcome, what’s the hell’s the point?
This should have been either a film à clef or a documentary — to paraphrase John the Revelator, either hot or cold because I spit the lukewarm out of my mouth —; as it is, though, it’s neither fish nor fowl.
What the movie actually is is the opposite of what it purports to be; i.e., behind its claim to objectivity, the film is subjective to the point of hagiography. According to writer/director David Mamet, Spector (Al Pacino) was nothing more than a "beloved eccentric" condemned, not by the evidence against him — little or none, according to the film but by public opinion and an incompetent defense lawyer.
The latter is odd considering that Linda Kenney Baden (Helen Mirren), his defense attorney, served as a consultant for the film; apparently
Baden was so entranced by Spector and grief-stricken that she couldn't save him from a wrongful conviction, that she simply forgot, when advising Mamet, about the prosecution's evidence that refutes her evidence — her evidence being the sole basis on which the movie swears by Spector's innocence.
But the revisionism of the film is not limited to Spector, and reaches Baden as well; for example, the fictional Baden declares that she will not "attack the girl", that is, Clarkson, to defend Spector; in fact, the defense did attack Clarkson in court, going so far as to show a video of Clarkson in blackface imitating Little Richard, unlike the fictional Baden, who refuses to use this footage (this doesn’t mean by the way that the film as whole doesn’t attack Clarkson) — furthermore, Baden-Mirren appears to be clairvoyant; early in the film she says that since "they let O.J." go, Spector will pay the piper; “He will be tried for the murder of O.J.’s wife and he will be found guilty” (and if this isn't a comment on the trial or its outcome, I don't know what the hell it is).
All things considered, it’s ironic when the movie asserts that “The prosecution has nothing except everyone's conviction that [Spector] is guilty”; it’s actually Mamet who has nothing except his conviction that Spector is innocent.
Phil Spector amounts to nothing much other than a reminder that "even Homer nods"; Mamet wrote and/or directed some of the best films of the '90s-mid-2000s, and even his comparatively inferior work could never be accused of dishonesty or malice. However, with this one it becomes clear that this is the Al Pacino movie that should be called The Devil's Advocate.
Read full review
★ 8 / 10
The damndest sorta-true, sorta-false story in years
StevePulaski
"This is a work of fiction. It's not 'based on a true story.' It is a drama inspired by actual persons in a trial, but it is neither an attempt to depict the…
"This is a work of fiction. It's not 'based on a true story.' It is a drama inspired by actual persons in a trial, but it is neither an attempt to depict the actual persons, nor to comment upon on the trial or its outcome." Above is the disclaimer that precedes David Mamet's Phil Spector. If I didn't know what to think of a biopic on the extreme eccentric character Spector was and remains, I really didn't know what to think after seeing that. This is a film that is just as enigmatic as its title figure, and earns its first strength by not judging, objectifying, or even shortchanging him despite his conviction. To make a biopic that lacks a viewpoint on its subject is a difficult, and often rare thing to do, yet the closer I look, the more I feel that Mamet made this film solely off of the fact that Spector is a compelling and unique figure.
For those unaware, Phil Spector was a renowned record producer in the sixties and seventies, known for helping The Ronettes, John Lennon, and The Ramones achieve untold heights with their music. Spector, himself, achieved notoriety in the public eye for being a true force of energy and uncompromising in his pursuit for greatness with his artists. In 2003, a woman named Lana Clarkson was found dead in his mansion from a gunshot wound through her mouth. Spector was quoted that night saying, "I think I killed somebody," and has had a known history with threatening violence to his girlfriends. But Spector's defense team has fought day-in and day-out to prove that it would be impossible for him to have committed the murder, due to the lack of evidence on crucial pieces (IE: lack of blood on his jacket).
Mamet decides to set his sights on the events preceding the first trial and the events of it, with Al Pacino assuming the role of Spector and Helen Mirren embodying Linda Kenney Baden, his attorney. The first act of the film focuses on the interworkings of Spector's defense team, where we see Baden and Bruce Cutler (Jeffrey Tambor) try to enact a plan for going about Spector's impending trial. Only until about twenty-minutes in do we see Spector, who is portrayed as a ruthless, foul-mouthed, arrogant, frustrated time-bomb on the verge of an implosion due to media scrutiny and constant false allegations. The film's most powerhouse scene comes when we first meet Spector, and him and Baden have a long, fifteen minute monologue together in Spector's luxurious mansion. During the course of it, the dialog is fast-paced, always engaging, and buoyed greatly by two terrific performers.
Pacino and Mirren unsurprisingly carry the film to heights it may not have seen had lesser performers been placed in their roles. Think of the drudgery that would've taken place had those two cinematic greats been swapped for second/third-rate performers in their first moderately big film. I'm already a tad shocked that Phil Spector has been sidelined to primetime programming on HBO, when it clearly has the names to make it to the theaters (besides Pacino, Mirren, and Mamet, director Barry Levinson is credited as producer). But I suppose the real question is, would this film have made it out of the theaters with its budget and then some? Is this a story that could be universally appealing? My answer is no, because Phil Spector is not a perfect film and is story could be viewed as mundane with the abundance of other courtroom dramas. The trouble the film runs into the most is its length; it feels like Mamet was given a specific runtime before he even started shooting the film and couldn't make it any longer or shorter than ninety-five minutes. For this reason, some scenes (take the courtroom ones) feel short and undercooked, and the ending wraps everything up untidily after the first trial, which was declared a mistrial. With the wealth of information on only Spector's case, but the possibilities that could've resulted because of Spector's true enigma and personality as a whole, a whole hour could've been attached on to the ending. It seems silly to hire big names like Pacino, Mirren, Tambor, and Mamet for an ambitious project, but only utilize them for ninety-five minutes entirely.
Even though the picture remains unbiased, it is a relatively unsurprising fact that both sides of the Spector case have been able to get fired up about some element in the film. Clarkson's family feels that she was portrayed in an overly dramatic, unstable manner, while Spector defenders say that the "time-bomb" personality Pacino generates on screen isn't accurate at all. The way I see it, you can judge Mamet on the way he portrays the characters here, but you can't say he takes sides here. Both sides seem to have truths to them, and neither of them are given cold hard facts.
Mamet conducts the picture fluently and interestingly, even offering something of a commentary on the current state of our legal system and how we may have a problem at judging personality over person or something along those lines. Pacino's embodiment of Spector is wholly memorable, Mirren provides the picture with true elegance, and the supporting performances are forbidden to tread the line of unimportance. It's just a shame the scope wasn't broader, and the story more inclusive.
NOTE: Phil Spector will be playing on HBO for the remainder of March and April.
Starring: Al Pacino, Helen Mirren, Jeffrey Tambor, and Matt Molloy. Directed by: David Mamet.
Read full review
51%
TOMATOMETER
· 41 reviews
31%
AUDIENCE
· 500 ratings
6.2/10
8.7K
•••
Thanks (Y) Rare