'Catch Me If You Can' - A Really Belated Review

Before I Begin My Review
Okay. So I'm really late on this picture by 3 years.
There was once a time where I would've rushed out to catch the latest picture by Steven Spielberg, but after the late 1980s and the early 1990s, I got disabused of that idea. 'Color Purple', 'Always' and 'Empire of The Sun' were all disappointments in their own way that made you think, "this guy's stopped making movies for me. Even when he made the third installment of the Raiders' movie, he seemed like he was doing it by rote. Both Jurassic Parks were really underwhelming and distinctly un-moving in the way that his late 1970s/early 1980s pictures, specifically, 'Jaws', 'Close Encounters', '1941' and 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' & 'Temple of Doom' were really moving.

Then came the epic moral soapbox movies of the 1990s: 'Schindler's List' and 'Saving Private Ryan'. They were technically great films that left a lot of people feeling really empty when they felt they had to feel something just because the subject matters were so important. By the time the 1990s closed out, I'd realised that the filmmaker Spielberg was a much smaller man than his artistry or technical brilliance or huge success or his bank account would lead you to believe. I guess I never found that moment again with a Spielberg movie that I had experienced as a kid; and for crying out loud, it was his films that taught me what a director did. I owe the man an artistic debt that as a musician, I owe the Beatles.

Having said that, I felt really leery about his 1990s work. Then came 'Minority Report'.
Now this was a tough film. I love Philip K. Dick's work. I even like Spielberg's deft hand; I just can't stomach Tom Cruise any more. I don't know what happened there, but I think it's just me getting old and bitter. I just don't like Tom Cruise. Tom Cruise represents everything that is wrong with Hollywood film-making. It's not his fault that Hollywood chooses to make the films the way it does, but he's a vital cog in that machinery which is by definition and intention, so anti-artistic and anti-creative. So in 'Minority Report', you had at once a very tense viewing experience because here was am masterful director making a piece of fiction that would not allow you to suspend disbelief because the main actor was a dirty big star with too much baggage.
Nonetheless I have to admit that was a good film. When I heard that the two of them went off to make 'War of the Worlds', I felt nauseous. I have to confess I am yet to see that film too. 'Catch Me If You Can' was the film Spielberg made in between 'Minority Report' and 'War of the Worlds'. You can see why I felt like I wanted to avoid it.

What's Good About It?
For a start, it's pacey, and the direction is deft. You sort of expect that, but it's actually nice to see a film where the style matches the hand. Spielberg isn't exactly straining to do this; he seems comfortable to just let the story unfold and his hand seems less clutchy, but rather supple and relaxed. he's had enough success that he's not trying to prove to you he's a brilliant director. And we're better off for him getting over that hump because the film flows really nicely. The narrative is a little convoluted, but his snappy directing helps keep it taut. Overall, the story-telling is crisp.

The art department did a magnificent job in this film too. Spielberg is always an art-department-heavy filmmaker but in this film, the art department is crucial. The late 1960s indeed come to life on the screen in a way that evokes one's own distant memories, and that alone is pretty good.

Then there are the performances. Leonardo DiCaprio must be one of the most remarkable actors around today who can play a teenager and play Howard Hughes. We've known he was good for a long time, but recently we've found out just how good he can be. Starting with 'Gangs of New York', he's managed to put together a variety of really interesting roles and then there is his performance in this film as an exuberant, adrenaline-charged Frank. Tom Hanks playing the FBI agent Carl Hanratty is by contrast, understated and very subtle in playing the repressed angst of the FBI man obsessed with his work. Christopher Walken as the dissolute father Frank Sr. is also a sight to see.

On top of it all, the film is very thought-provoking, but I'll get to that shortly.

What's Wrong With It
I really had a hard time thinking about what was wrong with it. However, I will say one thing. I never felt entirely comfortable watching this film. It had me feeling like there was something a lot more to this story than the simple cat and mouse story that unfolded on screen. I wanted to know more about Frank Sr. and why he raised his son the way he did. Something I didn't quite get was how Hanratty came to be so obsessive. Indeed, Frank and Carl are kindred souls, but we don't realise this until the last act where Frank is in jail and suddenly provides insight into a piece of forgery.
But more puzzling to me was why was Steven Spielberg making this film now?


The Odd Bit of Thought
From here on in, it's really not a review of the film. The film is a surprisingly fine film. The thoughts I have to do with it concern the nature of youth, talent and success as told by Spielberg in this film.

Spielberg himself started out in Hollywood pretending to be somebody, just hanging out at the studios until he finally did nail a position as an assistant editor. And from there, he built the brilliant career we know today. In that sense, if anybody could relate to the incredibly precocious Frank Abignale Jr., it would have to be the former wunderkind Steven Spielberg. In fact if you compared how the two men worked out, you'd have to say Steven ended up much more successful than Frank. Frank might have made a million or two after he started helping people design better cheques but what does that compare to the movie moguldom of one Steven Spielberg?
See what I mean?

So I asked myself, "what the hell is this?"
No matter how much interest or adulation or flattery Spielberg might put int his film about Frank Abignale Jr., it can't help but look like condescension from one wunderkind to another; from a more successful one to a less successful one. And the logical line to be drawn out from this observation is that he's telling us all how good he is. Or is he? Or is he trying to confess there's something wrong with him? Could he actually be bein somewhat obliquely auto-biographical or confessional here?
So you can see why I sat there thinking "what the hell is this film?"

The flip-side to this is the fact that Spielberg is making a film about a reckless youth in praise of youth itself when he himself is probably hitting 60 (like Rick Wakeman I mentioned a few days earlier). Maybe there's an intimation or recognition of mortality in this work, but no matter how hard I look, I can't see it. Is it in the bit where Carl tells how Frank Sr. died? I didn't see it. Is it in the way Frank loses his exuberance? I don't know. All I saw was an attempt to keep that death extra-diagetic. Is it in the angst over the collapse of the nuclear family? It's hard to say that's the reason for the film anymore than it is to say Frank's actions (or Spielberg's career) is about the result of that collapse. I mean, what exactly do we make of other talented and successful human beings such as Steve Jobs or Bill Gates ot Derek Jeter or A-Rod?
How does it relate to us ordinary people?

Whatever the case may be,the film left feeling very unsettled and incredulous. It's an excellent film; and I'd say more so if it had not been the creation of Steve Spielberg - which I know is being totally unfair . But knowing it's Spielberg's handiwork, as it stands, it's a palimpsest from a successful and talented man to the rest of humanity who simply pull down pay-checks. I still don't know what to make of it. Is he telling us to fuck off and die in misery?