Girl 6 Review
by Zak Forsman (swan AT epix DOT net)February 24th, 1997
GIRL 6
A film review by Zak Forsman
Copyright 1997 Zak Forsman
Cinematic Masturbation
Directed by SPIKE LEE
Written by SUZAN-LORI PARKS
THERESA RANDLE as Girl 6
ISAIAH WASHINGTON as Shoplifter
SPIKE LEE as Jimmy
PETER BERG as Caller 1, Bob
JENIFER LEWIS as Boss 1, Lil
NAOMI CAMPBELL as Girl 75
RICHARD BELZER as Caller 4
THOMAS BYRD as Caller 18
QUENTIN TARANTINO as Q.T.
MADONNA as Boss 3
HALLE BERRY as herself
I'm not sure how I feel about GIRL 6. I mean, if it had been done by anyone else I would probably have thought more of it. But, because it is a Spike Lee joint, well, I just expected more. The film explores an up and coming actress' brief experience as a phone sex operator. It's something she twice refers to as, "just a job," but it quickly becomes obvious that
she is addicted to the new found power she holds over her callers.
As with many films, the weakness lies in its foundation--the screenplay. Here the problems arise not with dialogue, but with the depths the writer was willing to go. I didn't feel we were given many chances to really understand the motivations of Theresa Randle's character. That was a major flaw in my opinion. The screenplay could be described as an exercise in symbolism. With this I mean, "the little girl who fell down the elevator shaft" sequences she watches on the news. Also, the caller, Bob Regular, who promises to meet her at Coney Island but ultimately stands her up. From this scene I take it that she is looking for what she needs where she won't find it. These are the aspects of GIRL 6 that worked very well for me, but that's only half a screenplay. I just felt that those aspects were grounded in a lazy script.
Spike Lee continues to change and explore new filmmaking techniques. In CROOKLYN, he shot a sequence, with an anamorphic lens, during which Troy, the little girl, is out of her normal environment. The film was primarily shot flat, so the anamorphic scenes looked squeezed or skinny. This effect lasted until the little girl returned home. In GIRL 6, Spike uses that same technique to instill an awkward and unsettling feeling toward the subject whenever he feels necessary. He also shot all of the callers in HDTV--which compared to film has less resolution. Spike has said that he did this to example by visual means their lack of power. Theresa Randle was shot on film, her image was stronger, she was in control. This technique was also applied to the two videotaped auditions that she has. She is asked, by Quentin Tarantino, to show her breasts. After some fussing, she concedes. At that moment, Spike cuts to the video image of her being taped as she removes her top. The moment is effective.
The film's cast is great, although no one is given much time to developed other than Theresa Randle, but then, she's the important one. Spike Lee's role as Jimmy is one of his better cameos--very funny. The other phone sex operators fill their characters well. I especially got a kick out of seeing Naomi Campbell in a shirt that read, "Models Suck."
Like I said earlier, if the film had been done by someone without a track record as good as Spike Lee's, I'm sure I'd be recommending that you see this film. With that in mind, if you approach this film as an exercise in film technique or if you're just a fan of Spike Lee (as I am), you will appreciate it more than the average moviegoer. There's really not much depth to this story. I liken this situation to when Martin Scorsese does projects like AFTER HOURS or CAPE FEAR. The film is good. The film-maker is capable of much more.
Writing **
Directing ****
Acting ****
P.S. The title of this review is in reference to the film's self-indulgent use of technique to express something (a story) that is devoid of any real substance.
Ratings are based on the four-star system.
Zak Forsman, filmmaker
Swan Pictures Independent
http://www.epix.net/~swan/
[email protected]
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
