Duped

 

Claire:  If I told you I loved you, would it make any difference?

Ray:  If you told me or if I believed you?

Adults -- you remember them, the phantom demographic that no one in the industry seems to care about -- often complain that there aren't enough movies for them to see.  This past weekend, they had little reason to bitch.  Here was Duplicity: Julia Roberts and Clive Owen in a smart, sophisticated spy caper/romantic comedy, written and directed by Tony Gilroy, one of the best in the biz.

Weirdly enough, it was that noisy, special effects-driven Nick Cage sci-fi shlocker called Knowing that won the weekend box office, proving that gerunds rule the day -- no, proving, apparently, that the industry is right to ignore people over 25, because they simply don't show up in theaters.  Or that Julia Roberts isn't the star she used to be, that female-driven pictures (as studio wags believe) don't necessarily open big, but they do have legs (i.e. end up profitable over time).  Or is that Duplicity isn't any good?

Nah.  You can carp about it (though the critical establishment, remarkably enough, had little to find fault with), and such a light piece of glossy escapism may not be your cup of capuccino, but on a basic movie-movie level (i.e. is it fun?), Duplicity is anything but bad.

Personally, I wish it had more of an emotional charge -- I can understand how this kind of heady, brain-teaser of a picture can leave some people cold -- but it's a nifty ride: shamelessly glamorous, near-seamlessly constructed, and possessed of an unusual ability to keep one guessing up until its final moments.  I have a feeling it's the kind of durable, deftly-crafted feature that will inspire more affection over time.  After Michael Clayton, my pick for The Great Underrated Classic of the 2000s, I had way too high expectations for Mr. Gilroy.  But how much do we want to beat up on the guy for being... entertaining?

After all, it's said that the great chefs are the ones who can deliver a perfect soufflé, in addition to their more substantial four-star entrees.  Don't want to go into too much detail, since the confectionary fun lies in the specifics of the game that Gilroy's playing here, but I'll just briefly cite Two Things I Like About Duplicity, since they're two things near and dear to Living the RomCom's heart.

One, it really is a combo platter.  I'm always going on about how many of the best romantic comedies are two movies at once, and Duplicity is the proverbial breath mint and a candy mint.  It proves the maxim that mixing genres, far from being ill-advised, can be a great way to go. 

While the movie is clearly a corporate espionage thriller (played as drama, albeit with tongue sardonically wedged in cheek), it's inarguably a romantic comedy.  Its core conflict lies within its central romance (largely played for laughs, albeit with a dark strain of stick-in-your throat seriousness). The play between its two genres is the very tension that keeps the movie so intriguing.  It's a story that wants to know: which is more important, love or money?  And its answer, while not entirely surprising, comes with a very satisfying bittersweet edge.

Two, it's that surprise thing.  As Gilroy has pointed out (in an edifying New Yorker profile), today's audiences are reversal-jaded.  We've seen so many unexpected turns in so many movies by now, that we're infinitely hard to surprise.  Gilroy's self-stated goal is to top known reversals so that even the savviest genre audience won't get ahead of him.  And impressively, Duplicity manages that feat.  I so want to talk about the ending (there's a bracingly rude perfection to its ruthless logic) but I can't, I can't... and that's a peculiar sort of pleasure that not enough movies these days provide.

It's also cool to see One of These espionagers that has not a single car chase -- an explosion -- a somebody flying through a plate-glass window.  There is suspense, and a little bit of violence (perversely, the biggest physical fight is in slow motion and occurs within the first 15 minutes), but mostly the excitement comes from dueling wits, as opposed to the usual witless body blows and mayhem.

In its zeal to keep its audience on its collective toes, Duplicity may annoy you.  Its labyrinthian network of flashbacks requires uncommon alertness, and a movie that makes you work too hard can provoke resentment.  I happen to like a picture that appeals to my intelligence, and having been forewarned by some naysayers that the movie was "too clever for its own good," I didn't mind that extra level of brain taxation -- not with all the pretty locations, the snappy dialogue, the chemistry between its stars that for once felt genuine (and the whole cast is dreamy: the not-enough-seen Kathleen Chalfant, the increasingly watchable Denis O'Hare, and a sly, Coen Brothers-esque turn by Paul Giamatti, et al).

Make no mistake, this is Good Movie Lite.  But though it's no Michael Clayton, I'm actually looking forward to seeing Duplicity again, to see just how the duping was done.

 

Comments

[E.C. Henry]

Great review, Billy. Your love for Tony Gilroy's work really shows.

Unfortunately, I'm not a big "spy"/"caper" movie guy. Usually it's the core story, the meat of the reason for the caper that I don't buy or enjoy watching for two hours.

STILL, I do love hearing you rave about a story you like. Hope someday one of those stories is mine.

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

[Christian Howell]

Good review. It does bring to light a specific issue with cinema. Did the chicken come first or the egg. Meaning did audiences want "frilly fare" or was it just provided and gotten used to. I'd go with the latter. John Milius just lameented how writing is just not as good as it used to be.
I agree. The problem is, I think, that people are writing scripts and not movies. There is a difference.
A script concentrates on spoon feeding, a movie is what it is. A script worries about plot points, but a movie worries about images.
A script wants to be loved, a movie wants to be respected.
I can admit that I have recently been really stirred up by the process.
I entered a contest with feedback, got the feedback - it was great but it sucked; whatever that means - adjusted it, got another reader with a TOTALLY different take. As a matter of fact I have yet to find two readers with the same opinion. But it makes it easier to say, "yeah right, write your own movie and then all that crap will be in it."

Sorry for the rant.

[Chris]

Billy! I still haven't seen Duplicity yet, but I just found out that His Girl Friday is on Hulu! Free His Girl Friday for everyone!

It's a classic so I thought you'd like to hear.

[JamminGirl]

Actually Billy, I beg, no, demand to differ, I don't think the film was at all hard to follow. I wouldn't want to give the plot away, but a duplictitous couple got theirs *wink wink*.
I liked the twists. They made me smile. I even cracked a giggle once or twice. Too bad no one else in the theatre found it funny, even at the end. A bunch of sour pusses(the cats! please! the cats!) they were.

I also liked the romantic aspect of the film. It wasn't the trite fake, boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy wins girl and they all live happily ever after.
Instead it was firmly rooted in reality(despite the fantastically espionage type edge). Trust issues, committment question, what would u risk to be with me, plans for the future and the ultimate thing that I love, "you understand me"!
Isn't that really what love is? Being with that one person you both fancy physically, while getting your needs/wants met(both emotionally/intellectually and physically)?
That to me made the film worth watching.

You mentioned "Knowing". God, there really is a dearth of inspirational/spiritual films out there, isn't it?
I can't watch knowing, and no, it isn't due to a lack of faith. In fact my faith in God is beyond strong. I can't watch knowing, though it isn't due to a lack of trying. I tried. Twice.

This shlock(as you so aptly termed it) had the most "on the nose" dialogue I've heard in awhile. It had so many "I've seen this before" cliches, I forgot what film I was supposed to be watching. Example, the little girl being discovered in the dark cubby hole with bloody fingers, shuddering and whispering "make it stop. make it stop". sixth-sence, anyone?
Or when Cage tracked down the girl's adult daughter(yeah, I know, bad phrasing) and the daughter's reaction is "get away from me!". Why couldn't she reacted in a less cliched, more rational manner? Is she retarded? Also, why did he start out by lying and playing games(my kid meet your kid)? Why not get to the point?
Worst of all, it was the premise. The whole idea that disasters and death were some mathematical code for some American hero to figure out and go about stopping them was beyond ridiculous.(me being Jamaican always wonder why the hero is some white American dude-- but then these disasters only occur on American soil. go figure) How often have we seen this film. Seriously?

But it's making a killing(pardon the pun) at theatres, isn't it? The Godlessness of hollywood aparently isn't as wide reaching as they might've thought. Heck Mel Gibson coulda tell them that.

[mernitman]

EC: Just keep at it...

Christian: Rants R us.

Chris: Thanks for the info! (Hope it's a good print, as the public domain HGF that was circulating in video days wasn't black and white, it was grey.)

JamminGirl: You're preaching to the choir with your take on "Duplicity." And re: "Knowing," thanks for taking the bullet -- now I'm Knowing I don't need to be seeing it.

[Ben]

I totally forgot this movie existed. I remember really wanting to see it but going with a buddy to watch "Knowing" instead. Like you mentioned, that flop owned the box office for long enough to keep me from seeing Clive Owen and Julia Roberts. I'm very glad I ran across your review. I'm already in the process of renting it :)