# Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1997)

### reviewed by
Ted Prigge

    MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL (1997)
    A Film Review by Ted Prigge
    Copyright 1997 Ted Prigge

Director: Clint Eastwood Writer: John Lee Hancock (based on the novel by John Berendt) Starring: John Cusack, Kevin Spacey, Lady Chablis, Jack Thompson, Jude Law, Alison Eastwood, Paul Hipp, Irma P. Hall, Bob Gunton, Geoffrey Lewis, Anne Haney

I'm not even going to pretend that I read the book, but something tells me that this film pays too much attention to detail and not the style and mood. I have a feeling that the book is a hypnotic non-fiction account which pulls the reader into its pure off-beatness of a pretty bizarre culture. Even though I really did enjoy this film, and was throughly interested the whole time, it still has some flaws in it which ultimately pull the film down from being a possible awesome film to a near-miss.

"Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil," for those of you who don't know, is based on an incredibly popular non-fiction best-seller by John Berendt, who went to cover a Christmas party in Savannah, Georgia, and eventually bought an apartment down there after being sucked into the culture. In the film, he is played by the awesome John Cusack, and re-named John Kelso. He's never truly defined or anything, but he's very likable as played by Mr. Cusack.

The film follows him around as he meets all sorts of weird Savannah-ites throughout the course of the film, such as a man who walks a leash since the dog he's supposed to walk has died long ago; a man who has flies and bugs tied to leashes (Geoffrey Lewis); a voodoo lady named Minerva (Irma P. Hall - who else?); a cool, suave piano player named Joe (Paul Hipp); and an interesting love interest named Mandy (played by Clint's daughter, Alison).

But the main person he meets is Jim Williams (Kevin Spacey), a noveau riche aristocrat who's throwing the party John is to cover. As played by The Amazing Kevin, Jim is a lovable man who's suave, always looking cool (with a lovely moustache), and an air of southern tobacco around him whenever we see him, even when he's not smoking anything. Even if he's not wacky like the guy with the dog leash or the flies, he's still the most interesting character in the film.

The novel, apparently lacks any real form until about 140 pages or so into it when the whole John Grisham part occurs: Jim shoots his male lover (Jude Law), and there's a court case over whether he did it in cold blood or in defense. The film dives into this about a half hour or so into itself, seemingly so a wider audience can appreciate it. Of course, there are many subplots that still go on, but none which are as focused as this one, making some of them seem almost unnecessary.

The most interesting other subplot deals with the relationship between John and the Lady Chablis (played by Nathan Lane...no, sorry, it's played by the real Lady Chablis), a transexual or transvestite (forget which) who is more feminine than Ellen Ripley (a cheap plug: go see "Alien: Resurrection"). She's one of the more interesting characters in a movie, and it's awesome that she/he really exists. I'm sure she'll never get a moment's peace after this, though.

However, the most uninteresting part is the love affair between John and Mandy. As played by Alison Eastwood, she's a fantastically cool character who's always interesting for the sole fact that Alison plays her so well. She is not written as a very interesting character, but Alison just becomes the role (a nice plug for nepotism - take note Mr. Coppola). Unfortunately the writing for their romance is under-written, and seems way too forced. I mean, she's dating or pseudo-dating Joe in the beginning, but whatever happens to them quickly disappears when John shows up on the scene. Oh well.

The main problem with this film is the writing. I think that making John the central figure doesn't really work with the film. Apparently, John is hardly a big factor, but here everything works around him. Therefore, the film isn't as fascinating, since everything we see is through his eyes. I would just like to see a scene where the characters inter-act without the presence of that "yank," which they call him repeatedly.

Clint Eastwood is a good director, but has always been more of a subtle director. He was the perfect director for "Unforgiven," but I'm not sure if he's the right choice for this. He's never really been an overly cerebral director ("Unforgiven" obviously excluded), and the film never really makes any grand themes. The film is really like a bunch of disjointed tales taking place in the same town, and sometimes dealing with another (usually the big plot). There's depth to the film, but no greater depth. For instance, a bit at the end about perception is wonderful, but has nothing to do with any other part of the film.

"Midnight in the Garden of Good an Evil" has so much potential to be an absolutely awesome film, and yes, it's a pretty enjoyable film (if not a tad long - 2 1/2 hours, by the way). I liked it, but I can't really say it succeeded in what it was supposed to succeed in. So, like several films of good intentions, it falls into the class of a "near miss."

    MY RATING (out of 4): **1/2

Homepage at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/8335/

The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews