When I was looking for something to watch the other day via free on-demand, I stumbled across “Stone,” which I’d never heard of. It caught my eye because of the acting combination of Robert DeNiro and Edward Norton, two tremendous character actors. While DeNiro has damaged his career by making some mind-numbing choices in recent years and Norton tends to just disappear for years at a time, I was intrigued enough to roll the dice on “Stone.”
DeNiro is aging quickly, making his role as world-weary, nearing-retirement parole officer Jack Mabry a good fit for him. Norton is striking as a corn-rowed-out convict (Gerald “Stone” Creeson”) up for parole eight years after playing a part in murdering his grandparents and then burning down their house. Norton reprises elements of his roles from both “Primal Fear” and “American History X,” two amazing films that demonstrated his depth of talent and ability to evoke intimidation that belies his appearance.
The cast is rounded out by the always-underrated Frances Conroy (most notable for her turn in “Six Feet Under”) and the still-striking Milla Jovovich, who is still most recognized for her omnipresence in the “Resident Evil” franchise—however, the peanut gallery pointed out that she should be most noteworthy due to the fact that parts of her anatomy could be used to tune in far-flung radio stations in Tokyo. Both Conroy and Jovovich played damaged and hard-to-judge wives, of Mabry and Creeson, respectively.
I’m not familiar with director John Curran’s other work, which includes “The Painted Veil” and “We Don’t Live Here Anymore,” but the cinematography (primarily shot in Michigan) was well-done in “Stone.” The plot hinged largely on transgressions only hinted at, especially on the part of DeNiro, though we know his character is hugely flawed based on a very powerful opening scene. As the movie progress, Curran turns his piece on the question of who, really, is more evil or immoral—Mabry or Creeson? Both are wary of the process and seek to use it to their advantage where they can.
The most difficult aspect of the flick to reconcile is whether Creeson has truly found a religion that is changing him, that is helping him to get in harmony and “hear” more clearly. Mabry, obviously, is skeptical, though both men are changing in opposite ways as the film progresses. By the end of the movie, Curran asks us to determine whether we should feel sorry for Mabry, flipping the roles of these two men who appear to be headed in opposite directions. And while Mabry’s wife Madylyn and Creeson’s wife Lucetta are left to deal with their own shocking actions, the movie closes with questions about who is now “hearing” on the right path.
“Stone” forces us to consider heavy issues involving religion, guilt, fate (most notably, Mabry would not have ever had to deal with Creeson if he would have agreed to give up his current case files in anticipation of his retirement), atonement, sin, hypocrisy, and the idea of whether people ever truly change. These enormous queries weigh down the movie with a darkness and pessimism that can be difficult to bear, but I still found this film to be thought-provoking (the symbolism of the fly is truly mesmerizing) and much different than what I anticipated.
I read that the movie wasn’t reviewed well and positively bombed at the box office, if those things matter in the stature of a flick anymore. Norton still has a magic about him in roles such as the one offered him in this one, and his performance is enough to merit consideration to watch—and consider—the enigmatic, difficult-to-categorize “Stone.”
No comments:
Post a Comment