Exposed
2016Ana de Armas, Keanu Reeves, and Melody London - Editor
This was a surprise, really a surprise. This is a very mature film, not mature in content as in rating, but mature in filmmaking art form. There are 2 veins of seemingly disparate stories running parallel here that beautifully resolve to create a lush inside portrait of innocence, betrayal, lust, friendship, and the truthful breaking of "the status quo". It's bad cop vs. little girl. I absolutely loved my very first viewing of this film, and that is rare for me. I want to watch it again.
But it turns out there is a reason for this film being "bifurcated" into two streams. There was originally a director's vision, which had more to do with Isabel's part of the story, involving mystic beings from beyond, angelic creatures, visions, etc. And then there is the "real" world that K. Reeves inhabits as a kind of loser cop that is dragging his feet all the time because he's shaking off a dead partner syndrome. (By the way, why do cop partners always insist on taking on their dead partner's cases even at the peril of their job and badge and when the boss has told them "no"? Answer: it's cinema, and you would not have a story without it). Read the IMDB biography of Declan Dale, the supposed director, and you'll understand.
So this is really a film by......Melody London?
It's true that the film seems to drag. That's by what we would call "normal" standards today. There is a reason for that. The relationships need to be developed concretely to make this story work. Cutting out the length of scenes for the sake of impatient "expediency" would not do it justice, but would bring the overall story to harm by trivializing the importance of the bonds between the "real" world, and the world within Isabel's mind. I will not elaborate as I risk a spoiler if I do so.
But suffice it to say that the filmmaker....uh, editor..... here has done an excellent and MATURE job of pacing the film, bringing out the fine points of actor interactions, and interweaving the storyline. In the end it's all a huge payoff. It works. Fascinating and great filmmaking. I give it all my stars, and I haven't viewed it a 2nd time yet, but certainly will.
So it would seem that the so called failed marriage of producers and director in this case possibly led to a really good film. Hm. Kind of like "collaboration". I WOULD however have liked to have seen what the film was supposed to be like from just the director's original intentions.
If I could elaborate a bit on the whole "pacing" thing, the genius of timing in films resides in 2 things: 1. Weather is is appropriate to the subject matter and 2: If it is evenly distributed - consistency. This film accomplishes both. You can cut scenes early and quickly and then they are unevenly matched with other similar moments, but the editor here was careful not to succumb to an urge to "speed it up". Makes the whole thing more believable.
