***SPOILERS***
My reactions to One Night Stand, Mike Figgis' first film since the elegiac Leaving Las Vegas, are irritatingly contradictory. I walked out of the cinema thinking it was one of the worst movies I had ever seen: then went back and saw it twice more. Leaving the cinema on both subsequent viewings I thought yup, definitely dire. But I'd still watch it again. Why? It's a difficult question to answer.
The plot is pretty basic. The film opens with Max (Wesley Snipes), well-dressed, smooth, obviously well-off, talking to the camera and giving us a shrink-wrapped character update on himself - wealthy ad man from LA, married, nice house, two kids, and in New York to visit his estranged friend Charlie (Robert Downey, Jr) who has just been diagnosed as HIV-positive. At his hotel next day he meets Karen (Nastassja Kinski); later misses his flight, and, stuck in NY, goes to the concert she said she would be attending that night. On their way home they are mugged and Karen almost gets her throat slit: although they escape she is badly shaken and he spends the night in her hotel room as company for her. Of course, they end up sleeping together, and, as they are both married, they part the next day firmly determined to forget each other. Max goes home to his feisty, sexy wife Mimi (Ming-Na Wen), who meets him at the airport with a neon-pink jeep that looks like a full-size Barbiemobile - I want one!! 8) - but things have changed, and he becomes increasingly dissatisfied with his life, with his job, and with Mimi.
The action moves on a year: Charlie is seriously
ill in hospital, and so Max is back in NY, this time with
So what's wrong with this film? For a start,
the script - the writing is so bad in places I was cringing. The script was
originally written by Joe Esterhaz, then redone by Figgis, and having seen the
rewrite Esterhaz insisted his name be removed from the credits. I would be very
interested to see the original script - how could it possibly have been worse
than this?? There is a long, awful sequence in the middle of the film, where
a stoned Max makes a fool of himself and insults his guests at a dinner party,
and then he and
So why did I go see it three times? Hard to say.
The acting is generally very good. Ming-Na Wen is excellent as
Being a Mike Figgis film, the movie is all about atmosphere, and perhaps it is this that kept me coming back. The film *looks* beautiful - the shots are elegantly, carefully composed, and there is an overall gorgeous, soft, washed-out look to it. Scenes are creatively filmed - for example, there is one sequence right at the beginning where Max goes to watch the modern dance Charlie is producing, shot almost entirely in darkness broken by flickering projector lights as black-&-white dance scenes play out on the theatre walls, a hypnotic and visceral effect. And then there is the wonderful soundtrack, largely composed by Figgis, ranging from a heart-rending Beethoven cavatina to perky jazz themes. The music complements the film perfectly and plays a huge part in the creation of mood which is so crucial to the movie's impact.
Far and away the best thing in this film, however, is Robert Downey, Jr. His performance as Charlie is mesmerising - we don't see half as much of Charlie as we would like to, but in his screen time he manages to show us the essence of the character - funny, mercurial, endearing, sweet - shining through the terrified, furious Charlie of the last weeks in hospital. There is a photograph of him taken by Max on his first trip to New York which is blown up large and set up at Charlie's funeral: the portrayal of the character is so strong, so spellbinding, that as the camera lingers on the picture we completely forget we are looking at a photo of Downey. It is a picture of Charlie, just Charlie, and it is the highest skill which allows an actor to efface himself so successfully that the viewer forgets he is there, that the character is not real. Charlie *is* real, and when he dies it is as if it is someone we know, with true emotional impact.
Overall, whether this is a good or bad movie depends what you're looking for in a film. If you want a film strong on mood and atmosphere, this is for you; if you're looking for a good script and sharp dialogue, steer clear. I like both, which is probably why my reaction to the movie is confused and contradictory. Today I think the good outweighs the bad: if I were writing this tomorrow I might just as easily condemn the film as rubbish, because it really is - but it's very good too. Guess I'll just have to watch it again to make sure...8)
(c) Jennifer Mellerick 1999