Sidney Lumet: A Return to Form

by Andrew Jupin

So far this year’s film output has been more or less mediocre. However there have been a few exceptions thanks to the likes of Paul Greengrass (The Bourne Ultimatum), David Cronenberg (Eastern Promises) and yes, even Judd Apatow (Knocked Up). But between the usual weak period of January through April and then the nothing-but-dreadful summer season—thanks for absolutely nothing Sam Raimi—there wasn’t really a film to come along and pelt me over the face with any sort of bravado or cinematic dexterity. I will say that David Cronenberg came real close. Close enough that this article could also easily be about him. However I sat down early last week to view what will quite possibly become the best film of 2007: Sidney Lumet’s, Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead.

Two sons (Ethan Hawke and Phillip Seymour Hoffman) plot the robbery of their parents’ (Albert Finney and Rosemary Harris) jewelry store. Their plan goes wrong and takes the family into a tailspin towards a horrific and maddening conclusion. On the outside, this film is a simple heist movie: a robbery is planned; the robbery is executed; something goes wrong; there are serious repercussions that follow; punishment ensues, etc. This is something we have seen dozens of times in dozens of films—Lumet himself showed us this same formula in his 1975 robbery film, Dog Day Afternoon. But Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead is so much more than a simple heist film. As a matter of fact nothing is simple about it. The layers of this film are endless with the double crossing, the familial issues, the infidelities, the violence, the hatred, the desperation, they are all here and they are all pushed to extremes. This film has everything and it is all executed to perfection by a master director. The acting is stupendous across the board. Hoffman excels once again as Andy, the older, more desperate of the two brothers. He is conniving, ruthless and dastardly in every sense of every one of those words. Ethan Hawke shines as Hank, the down-on-his-luck, divorced father of one with unending child support payments and a nowhere job. And Albert Finney is stunning as Charles, the boys' victimized father who can't help but favor one son over the other.

Lumet is a wizard technically and always evokes the best from his actors. This film is of course no exception. The camera works in wondrous ways here. At the right instances, it sits back and just captures moments. It sits quietly in the back of the room and watches and listens, gathering important information for the audience. But when it needs to, when it is obligated, the camera scrutinizes the actors; getting right in their faces, moving in closer, judging with every frame.

Lumet’s New York in the year 2007 is a very personal place. It is still very much real and still unidentifiable to outside viewers. Lumet has never been keen on showing typical ‘movie’ New York, but rather, the real streets, the real neighborhoods, the real stretches of city where people walk and talk and work. There are no landmarks or famous venues; just streets, buildings and people compose his frame. Lumet’s New York is a dangerous place where the lower classes live in darkened apartments with bad lighting and few pieces of furniture while the rich live in sterile, straight-out-of-the-catalogue apartments that are just as dark; not in the physical sense, but in the emotional, spiritual sense.

The narrative structure is broken up into several different segments allowing the audience to interact with different characters at similar times. This allows the viewer to get everyone’s side of the story. This helps because a simple, straightforward narrative this film is not. They at first can appear distracting, especially with subtitles telling us whose side of the story we are watching and when it is taking place. But this device is not just inserted to make the film look flashy. No, it instead helps us to get a better understanding of where each character is coming from. It helps to understand why they are doing what they are doing and what—or who—is making them do it.

Lumet has once again produced a stunning masterwork; one that I hope garners him the critical claim he most certainly deserves. There has yet to be a better film this year. I can only wish that the film is able to reach a wide enough audience. Lumet, who garnered criticism in 2001 for refusing to stop the filming of a television show during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has been in dire need of a hit film. For a man whose debut feature gave us 12 Angry Men, expectations are always high. Last year’s Find Me Guilty was more or less lauded by critics and he hasn’t been able to find praise in at least ten years since the release of 1997’s Night Falls on Manhattan. I sincerely encourage everyone to see this film, especially those curious as to how you make an excellent, compelling, well-crafted piece of cinema in today’s Spiderman 3 film culture.