Updated: 23 August 1997

LEAVING LAS VEGAS

3/4

What do you do with this film? It is depressing and has--basically--a lot of really unwholesome material in the way of subject matter. And it is very, very well done. One of the better American films that I've watched lately. Really. It realized the concept of "being significant for what it left unsaid." The director, Mike Figgis, has made a bare-bones tragedy from the novel by John O'Brien that leaves a lot of questions purposefully and blatantly unanswered. Other answers, it barely alludes to. There is no heartfelt talk between the two main characters that glibly explains their pain. The movie just shows you what it shows you, and seems to say "that's it."

But that's not it, and the movie knows it. It is an interactive film, in that sense. Without supplying too much in the way of convoluted, pre-fabricated, and false motivations, it allows you to journey with the central characters as they move down a vague but absolutely inexorable path. And not with dread, or the normal sense of "Don't! Don't do it!" that is common in tragedies. Instead, you simply move along in a profound sadness. Not a resigned sadness, it's deeper and more active than that--it is a knowing sadness. And it gets deeper as the film winds down and finishes. In a normal tragedy, motive and flaw play a huge role--blame it on Sophocles and Shakespeare. This film, having been stripped of both motive and flaw, simply reduces the whole enterprise to its emotional value.

This is where the film had some help. You'd think you'd get tired of watching Elisabeth Shue do her "pain" face. But this pained expression, each time it pops up, is so completely warranted that I didn't question it once. I liked her name, too. Sera. As in "Que Sera Sera," I suppose. She is perfect for this role, though whether that--ultimately--is a compliment or not may be questionable. One of the most harrowing scenes in the film belongs to her. To her and three college or high-school aged sadists. It is a scene in which her calloused veneer is stripped away, revealing fear and vulnerability beneath. Like I said: harrowing, and not a pleasant scene to watch.

And then there's Nicholas Cage.

Okay, the man deserves his Golden Globe, and maybe the Oscar. He is quite good. This, coming from me--who was predisposed to dislike the film, and, in fact, thought it a pointless exercise in narcissistic masochism from what I had heard when it was in the theaters. Yet it is more than that. And Nicholas Cage's performance has a lot to do with that. It is an acutely painful, and astutely aware, performance. He plays the role as if redemption is no longer an issue for this man. Nor a desire, any longer. Perhaps that is the tragic flaw? He is haunted, but on his way past felling it.

What I really like is the way the film sometimes takes a moment just to linger on a scene. Thanks in part to Declan Quinn, the cinematographer, beautiful vistas and sunsets provide, somehow, a plaintive backdrop to the story, increasing its poignancy. The film captures Las Vegas very well. There are mobsters, prostitutes, strip bars, pawn shops, gaudy flashing lights, and lots and lots of cheap liquor.

Nails the place, in my opinion. The mood is enhanced by an eerily effective soundtrack that includes some dark numbers by Sting and others. Mike Figgis, who--in addition to directing-- received an Academy Award nomination for adapting the book into screenplay, also chose the music for the film. This is definitely a case where a man had a vision of what he wanted on the screen. That often makes for the best films, and in the case of LEAVING LAS VEGAS, at least, it holds true.