CONFIDENCE (**)
A con is short for a confidence game, where trust is an essential piece of a ruse. CONFIDENCE knows all about setup and deception, but at the end of it all, it understands little about risk, which is exactly what makes a con so devilishly satisfying. After I witnessed its tricks and admired its creativity, I was only half-satisfied, for at no point did I feel anything was at stake.
This reminds of the time when I was asked why I did not hold Zhang Yimou’s HERO in the same regard as Ang Lee’s CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON. It all comes down to how each film involves you. The former contained stunning imagery and dazzling fight sequences that were as impressive (if not more so) than the latter, but I found its characters cold and distant. Hence, when the protagonists of HERO suffered their lot, I could’ve hardly cared less, unlike in CROUCHING TIGER, where I was heartbroken and haunted.
Which brings me back to this film, which is told in flashback by its hero Jake Vig (Edward Burns). It is in his recollections that we meet his crew, watch their methods, and witness their prized con take place. It needs the performances of his men (Brian Van Holt and Paul Giamatti), the seduction of a call girl (Rachel Weisz), the protection of crooked cops (Donal Logue and Luis Guzman), and the funding of a mobster (Dustin Hoffman). All does not go smoothly however as FBI investigator Gunther Butan (Andy Garcia) comes in looking for Jake, with an old score to settle.
It goes without saying that trickery abounds, so no one’s true schemes emerge until the end. The movie’s slight-of-hand did catch me off guard, and to some extent, it all seemed plausible and entertaining. One of the more informative and satisfying scenes involves Jake and Lily (Weisz) posing as married couple at a jewelry store, convincing a customer that he’s a family friend. It’s a textbook swindle that shows what makes a con work: It’s not about taking confidence from a target, but giving it.
Alas, despite its chicanery, the movie at various moments feels verbose and smug. Jake and his boys comment and complain excessively, especially in one scene where they discover a fallen friend (Thou doth protest too much, methinks). Other similar scenes involve Jake’s confession/narration of his plans (which essentially make up the movie), where he never comes across as fearful or forthcoming. Sure he might have no reason to be, but it helps to pretend as such to provide his captor with a false sense of security, and his storytelling with an added depth of enigma. The whole movie is clever, but self-conscious and hence, self-defeating.
The film though has one resplendent asset, and he is Dustin Hoffman. Once again he reminds us of what a great actor he is, playing his most dangerous character since The Conscience in Luc Besson’s THE MESSENGER. As Winston King, the mobster Jake accidentally crosses and he eventually helps, he is electric. His focused intensity straddles easily from amiability to malevolence (with nice use of cheek slaps). It doesn’t matter whether he’s goofing around (MEET THE FOCKERS) or threatening, the man’s scene-stealing effrontery is a joy to behold.
Though she might be forever remembered for her stint in THE MUMMY movies, Rachel Weisz continues to take strong vampish roles, as she does here. Edward Burns has the grit to play Jake Vig, but his script requires him to speak too much, and it undermines his authority and mystique. It’s nice to see Robert Forster again, playing a target of King’s scheme, but he is given a morsel of a role. It could have been great if he were given the role of Jake Vig (see his understated in JACKIE BROWN to see what I mean). Director James Foley, who has a knack for directing movies with strong and harsh dialogue (e.g. AT CLOSE RANGE, GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS, FEAR), makes several miscalculations here. It doesn’t amount to a bad movie, but he is capable of more.
If only the movie could have cut down on its characters’ exclamations and have used a different course of action. Con men are usually never talkative about the tricks of their trade. It makes them harder to read, even unknowable, and thus more effective in doing their misdeeds. This enigmatic quality, which lends a sense of danger to crime stories, is woefully absent. Had the movie opted to tell its events in a straightforward manner, without the use of narration or oversight, it would have held us in anticipation. If you want to see superior examples of such storytelling, watch OCEAN’S ELEVEN, HEIST, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, or the two best con movies of them all, David Mamet’s HOUSE OF GAMES and THE SPANISH PRISONER. CONFIDENCE is merely overconfident.
Posted by FLIPCRITIC at March 18, 2005 05:07 PM