Phil Spector (2013)

Beautiful, moving film.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

I came to this HBO production with some trepidation being aware that representatives of both the victim and the convicted had poured scorn on this production, but with a top cast and being written and directed by David Mamet, I had to watch."Had to watch" in fact probably sums up my feelings about the movie. Spector to my mind was undoubtedly a production genius who had made some of the best records of the 60's - "Be My Baby", "You've Lost That Lovin Feeling" and "River Deep Mountain High" to name but three, not to mention his production duties for the Beatles, group and solo, but there's little doubt that he seemed to possess at the very least an eccentric and at most a control-freak mentality which, given his predilection for guns, ended up with the death of a woman named Lana Clarkson at his mansion retreat by a gunshot through the mouth.I remember when the story broke and reading about the circumstances of her death thinking that Spector had to be guilty but when his replacement defence attorney Linda Kersey (Helen Mirren) picks up the case she finds aspects of the evidence which when skilfully presented at trial, at least seem to bring in some doubt over his guilt. The film takes us up to the end of the inconclusive first trial at which point Kersey finally surrenders to the pneumonia assailing her all through the movie and we learn through a closing credit sub-title that in her enforced absence, Spector, as we know of course, was convicted and sentenced accordingly.However, the film is less concerned about the drama of the traditionally climactic courtroom scene than it is about examining the fragile state of mind of the crazed Spector and the efforts of Kersey to get through to him and find a way to defend him. That this seems to detract from considerations of the poor victim is a valid criticism, but as film entertainment, it's the scenes between Pacino and Mirren which undoubtedly work best.For once, Pacino's acting, which has been in over-the-top self-caricature mode since "Scent Of A Woman", is actually suited to the mass of eccentricity that is Spector and he gives a compelling performance of this undoubtedly gifted but strange man with his sense of self-importance, mood-swings and frankly bizarre choice of wigs depending on his mood. Subtle it isn't but I was ultimately convinced by his performance as I gradually witnessed less Pacino and more Spector in his characterisation.Mirren has to convey dogged determination combined with a legal lucidity as she tries to prise out a defence for her client, all the time struggling against her advancing illness and all this she does excellently. Arguably the skill of her acting steals some of Pacino's limelight but for me helps to ground the film more in reality, ultimately to its benefit.The movie is however mis-titled, as viewers might be misled into thinking this was a bio- pic of some kind, rather than focusing purely on his murder trial. That carp apart, I was thoroughly engrossed by this well-acted, written and directed study of madness of a musical great and to a lesser degree, of the American legal system at work.

Based on actual events that took place, PHIL SPECTOR dramatizes the court-case in which the eponymous hero (Al Pacino) is accused of murder and defended by hotshot lawyer Linda (Helen Mirren). With David Mamet as writer/director, viewers can expect nothing less than a penetrating character-study with the emphasis on great dialog and changing reactions. PHIL SPECTOR does not disappoint in this respect; a study of a once-great music producer fallen on hard times who (like Norma Desmond in SUNSET BOULEVARD) lives in fantasy-worlds of his own creation. The ever-increasingly grotesque choice of wigs Spector uses is proof of this. Sometimes it's difficult to separate truth from fiction, while listening to his lengthy speeches - which makes the lawyer's task of defending him that much more difficult. In the end Spector's pretensions are unmasked as he is literally brow-beaten into making an appearance in court: Mamet's camera focuses unrelentingly on his hands that shake uncontrollably as he listens to the evidence presented against him. As the lawyer, Mirren acts as a workmanlike foil to Pacino's central performance. Although firmly convinced of her client's innocence, she finds it increasingly difficult to present a convincing case; the judge and the prosecution seem hell-bent on frustrating her, as well as her client. Nonetheless she shows admirable stoicism in pursuing her case.In the end, however, PHIL SPECTOR is not really a courtroom drama, even though much of the action is set in and around the court-house. Rather it concentrates on the double-edged nature of celebrity; when you're riding high, no one can touch you, but when you're down on your luck, everyone wants to kick you. This helps to explain Spector's retreat into a fantasy-world - at least no one can touch him there.

Phil Spector (2013) *** (out of 4)David Mamet wrote and directed this bio-pic taking a look at the relationship between record producer Phil Spector (Al Pacino) and his defense attorney Linda Kenney Baden (Helen Mirren). The film starts off with a rather strange "warning" stating that this isn't based on a true story but inspired by the events of the case. I think it's pretty clear that Mamet feels that Spector was innocent in the crime, which he of course is sitting in prison for now. I'm not certain what the point of the movie was but it certainly works in terms of entertainment thanks to two great performances as well as a screenplay full of wonderful dialogue. I think the strongest thing going here are the performances and the screenplay. It should go without saying but both Pacino and Mirren are absolutely flawless in their performance and especially Pacino. If you're familiar with Spector then you know what a weird little man he was and I was really surprised to see how well Pacino pulled off the role. This isn't really a 100% mimic of Spector but instead Pacino really gets inside this guy and you do feel that we're seeing a real character and not just an actor playing a weird man. I found Pacino to be incredibly believable and especially during the scenes where his character goes into some frantic moments due to no one believing him. Mirren, who has to play the role sick, is also extremely good and comes across very strong. Jeffrey Tambor is also a lot of fun in his supporting role. Mamet's screenplay is full of that wonderful dialogue that he's best known for and I thought it really helped bring the lead character to life and help you understand him a bit more. I think those who feel that Spector is guilty are going to be upset with how they show him here but I found it to be quite interesting. The actual events of the case aren't really told in great detail and the courtroom stuff isn't what the movie is about. With that said, I'm really not sure what they were trying to do with the picture other than say Spector was convicted not because he murdered someone but because he's weird.

David Mamet's HBO film Phil Spector is less about the famous Wall of Sound producer than about Mamet himself, the screenwriter and director.The film as Mamet's meditation on a few themes beyond Spector's case.The primary theme is Mamet's familiar reaction against liberal right-think. He demonstrates the liberal's reflexive assumption that the woman must be the innocent victim, the powerful man must be the killer, especially if the woman is poor and the man is rich. Against this kneejerk and righteous bias any scientific evidence has no effect. With Talmudic rigour Mamet calls the rich to be accorded the same justice as the poor. So must the freakish. Here Mamet's Spector joins the long line of respectable crazies he cites, from Lenny Bruce to Jimi Hendrix to the pre-Yoko bald hermit John Lennon as free spirited eccentrics to whom justice must be paid.Finally, the film coheres with Mamet's controversial recent defense of the present gun "regulation" in America. Mamet discourages the assumption that a man who owns guns in necessarily responsible for any fatal mishaps they may cause. It also defends the apparently unbalanced -- in this case the creative -- against prejudgment. Don't go to this film for any truth about Spector and his failed date and the trial. True to the dynamic of fiction, Mamet's subject is about the larger interplay of elements of which the Spector history may or may not be one instance. His subject is the prejudice by which even -- or rather, particularly -- the righteous can blind themselves to any alternative reality and preclude justice. For more see www.yacowar.blogspot.com.