Hollywoodland

[lurkerwithout]

I really like the acting in this. Affleck, Brody, Lane, Tunney. All very good. And the basic underlying story is also good. An investigation into the suicide of George Reeves. I'm just not sure that the set-up works. Interspersing Simo (Brody)'s investigation with Reeves' story is a standard noir movie trick. But normally there is a framing device used to show WHY the two stories are running together. Interviewing people. A journal. Something. Here it the two stories suffer from feeling disconnected...

Comments

[ellakite.livejournal.com]

I liked this movie, despite the "disconnect" that you mention. I vaguely remember hearing that in the original script Simo's background mirrored Reeves' in a number of ways, and it was Simo's sympathy for Reeves which spurred him on.

I later read an article written by the author of one of the books that HOLLYWOODLAND was based on. The author was initially convinced that Reeves' had been murdered, but the deeper he dug the murkier things got. Simo's investigation in the movie pretty much uncovers the same facts that the author uncovered in the real world, in the order that the author found them. And you gotta admit -- while the framing sequence itself may suffer from a "disconnect" from Reeves' life, telling Reeves' story in that sequence leads to some extremely tense drama.

So, yeah -- there was something of a disconnect between Simo's and Reeves' lives... but in the end, I greatly enjoyed it.

[the-outlaw.livejournal.com]

This was the best acting Ben Affleck had given in YEARS. I was very happy with him. Same with Diane Lane. I don't normally like her, but she totally disappeared into the role. I liked the movie through the first murder scenario. But that scenario was so convincing that when they continued on to all the others, they didn't seem nearly as reasonable and I was wondering why anyone would give them equal weight. I think I would have liked it better if they guy had picked one and said "this is what happened!" Why did I watch that entire thing for a flat ending?

[ellakite.livejournal.com]

As I mentioned in another response, I've read an online article written by the author of one of the books this movie was based on -- he even served as a technical consultant on the film.

The author started off believing that Reeves' had been murdered, but after speaking to forensic experts and people who were truly close to Reeves, the author became utterly convinced that Reeves was a suicide. In the article, he mentions a lot of things which they did not include in the film, like an explanations for the extra bullet holes -- it is not uncommon for a suicidal person to make one or more "practice shots" in the days leading up to the fatal act, where they only turn the gun away from themselves at the last moment before pulling the trigger. The author goes on to explain that a lot of the other "discrepancies" at the death scene weren't really unusual for a suicide, despite what "common sense" may indicate. The author also learned that Reeves' family had a history of suicide & Reeves was extremely drunk the night of his death... both of which are high-risk factors for suicide. Additionally, the author discovered that the vast majority of people who claimed that Reeves showed no signs of depression were estranged friends and family members, many of whom had not spoken to Reeves in years. Those people who had worked closely with Reeves knew that Reeves was deeply depressed about being called back in to play Superman again; Reeves really felt that he was being typecast, and would never be taken seriously as an actor again.

I really think that the whole "framing sequence" was to show what this author uncovered, in the order that he uncovered it... and how the author originally believed one theory, but evidence eventually lead him to a completely different conclusion. For whatever reason, the movie didn't include all the facts that the author uncovered, either because of time constraints or for dramatic license... but after reading that article, I have a much better understanding and appreciation as to why the movie showed the investigation in the way that it did. And in the end, we can never be 100% sure of what happened that night; most of the suspects have died in the intervening decades. So I sort of liked the fact that they leave it up to the audience to decide what really happened the night that Reeves was killed.

That's my $0.02. Your mileage may vary.

Edited to correct a *MAJOR* mistake.