Basements (1987)

This very weird short demonstrates the fine line to be drawn between talking and communicating.All of the characters in this piece are not capable of communicating with one another. As a result, there is the expected confusion, and ultimate mayhem.There is very little plot. It has something to do with a nervous chattering woman who may or may not have a hidden history with the man who lives in the basement.Worth the time, but this is no slight diversion. Don't watch it if you can't devote your attention.

PLEASE NOTE: These comments contain SPOILERS!! I rented this film with high hopes. Of course, that in itself is usually a recipe for disaster.The play upon which the movie is based is very dear to me. I have performed in it and directed it three times. Given this, let make plain that I am not adverse to a director having a different vision than my own. That is to be expected and respected. The problem arises when the director has a vision that is counter to the work itself.First of all, I take issue with the casting of John Travolta in the role of Ben. In the text it is noted that Ben is the senior partner. With that in mind it becomes very difficult to believe that Tom Conti, who clearly has at least 10 years on Mr. Travolta, is the junior partner. Mr. Conti comes off as the world's oldest rookie. The most disturbing aspect of Mr. Travolta's perfomance (or lack thereof) is his horrendous dialect. Mr. Travolta's Cockney makes Kevin Costner's in Robin Hood appear brilliant! One would think that Robert Altman would at least see that a decent dialect coach were hired.The Dumb Waiter falls into a group of plays by Mr. Pinter that are known collectively as "Comedies of Menace." The setting is the basement of an abandoned building and, in my experience, provides a nicely clautrophobic atmosphere that heightens the sense of aforementioned "menace." For some reason, Mr. Altman chose to set the piece in a huge, airy, well-lit space. Picture the set for The Mary Tyler Moore Show, only bigger.My final, and most damning criticism of the piece is the ending. HERE COMES THE SPOILER!!!!! In the original text, Mr. Pinter clearly leaves the ending ambiguous. The word comes from on high that the target of the hit is about to arrive. Suddenly, Gus, stripped of his weapon and clearly roughed up, is thrust into the room. Ben instinctually points his weapon at Gus. Blackout. The end. In the film, we hear (but do not see) the shot and, over the credits, the cleaners (think Harvey Keitel in Pulp Fiction) are seen going to the site of the hit. Part of the beauty of the original is the fact that Mr. Pinter doesn't answer the final question for the audience. Mr. Altman, in effect, condescends to the audience by making that decision for us (and for Ben).There are far better adaptations of Mr. Pinter's work out there. Don't waste your time on this.

Altman really hit on a good thing with his short films written by Harold Pinter. The film effectively contrasts Conti's brilliant acting skills with the non-existent skills of John Travolta. Travolta's awful british accent is worth the price of admission alone! (I am sure this is all intentional - a real Altman touch) Travolta plays a hitman! And we all thought the Tarantino was the original one with that idea. A genius story that is excellently paced. For a great time, view this wonderful artistic piece.

I had to watch this movie for a college drama course, and the parts that I actually bothered to stay awake for were not worth it. The movie, which is based on a short drama, is just as bad on television as it is if you read it. There is no point to the entire story and I would rather bang my head against a wall for an hour than take the time to sit through it.