Twilight's Cast Is In Its Prime

by Matthew Buckley

Film noir is officially going old school. Twilight, a moody suspense film directed by Robert Benton (Places in the Heart, Nobody's Fool), stars three Oscar­winning actors who all meet any reasonable definition of "over the hill." Harry Ross (Paul Newman) is a weathered ex­private investigator who now lives on the estate of Jack and Catherine Ames (Gene Hackman and Susan Sarandon). Shot in the leg while rescuing their daughter Mel from the clutches of a would­be wooer, Ross is a recipient of their apparent gratitude. It's an easy life: Ross hangs out at the homestead, plays gin with Jack, and flirts cautiously with fading Hollywood starlet Catherine.

Two problems emerge over a hand of gin, however. First, Jack is dying of cancer. Second, Jack needs someone to hand over a package to someone named Gloria Lamar. Though suspicious, Ross accepts the task it's tough to refuse such things when the person making the request supports your whole life, and is a good friend to boot. For his trouble, he enters Lamar's apartment and finds himself, gunless, in the sights of ex­cop Lester Ivar, dying of a gunshot wound to the chest.

Evading Ivar, Ross learns that the dying man was the investigating officer of the death of Catherine's first husband, Billy Sullivan. The official story was that Sullivan drowned at sea, but if so, why all the gunfire? Even more important, why does Jack's package carry $10,000 of an apparent blackmail payment? With the help of a new gun and of some friends in convenient places (most notably Ross's old partner from the police force, played by Stockard Channing), Ross begins digging, literally and figuratively, to find the truth.

Now, this movie's plot is nothing special. The screenplay, co­written by Benton and writer Richard Russo, isn't so notable for the plot mechanisms as it is for the dialogue between the actors. Twilight has been advertised as an actor­lover's bonanza, with Newman, Sarandon, and Hackman playing off each other's formidable talents. They certainly do not disappoint. These characters are all people past their prime, who understand that in many ways life is passing them by. Sarandon, though the youngest of the three actors, is particularly good at conveying the wistful sadness of her character.

Growing old is really the sideline commentary of the entire film. Russo, notable for his recent novels like Nobody's Fool and Straight Man, writes about people struggling with growing old, and laces the angst such aging brings with bursts of wit. This screenplay is a prime example. James Garner plays a private investigator who, unlike Harry, has done quite well for himself; the sequences between him and Newman are funny, but in a detached way their locker­room talk is sad. Their characters realize they are old, and getting older, but they seem to be unsure of what to do about it.

There are a couple of things in this film that don't seem to ring true. It is one thing for septuagenarians Newman and Garner to exchange locker­room talk about women, but quite another for these fortyish and fifty­something women to actually succumb to their charms. Why would Sarandon or Channing be rushing out after Paul Newman, as they do in this movie? If a film had John Travolta falling for any of the Golden Girls, we would find it laughable. No doubt Newman has sexual charisma, but does it have any rational limit? In any event, this is a minor beef, as irrational sexual attractions aside, Twilight's acting is top­notch.

Film noir wannabes should take a few notes. Twilight has a few creaky plot points, but works since the acting is good. Maybe I misperceive Hollywood, but after Pulp Fiction we seem to be getting a lot of noir­esque films with lots of convaoluted plots and shady characters talking. This can work well if the characters are strong: look at films like Bound, Blood & Wine, and even Jackie Brown. But when the film has weak characters and tries to rely on plot, film noir doesn't work. Witness L.A. Confidential, a movie with a twisted, gargantuan plot and weak acting (I exclude Kevin Spacey from this, but not Kim Basinger). The film moves a lot but so what? Anyone can make a plot complex, but getting great acting is a different matter.

Twilight has been criticized, justly, for being too slow. It certainly doesn't have the plot of an L.A. Confidential. However, if film noir is supposed to be as much about the response of men and women to secrets, lies, and crimes, then doesn't it have to follow that the acting is critical? In fact, doesn't it follow that the acting is more important? Top to bottom, Twilight's cast is excellent. That, more than the relaxed plot, makes it worth seeing. MR

This article was published in the 11 March 1998 edition of The Michigan Review (Volume 16, Number 8).
For questions or comments, see the Contact Information page.