At some points Phone Booth is unintentionally a comedy of errors, and other points it is a half-baked thriller of errors. In order for the film to work, it needs to be reconstructed, from the script to the casting. At 81 minutes, the film functions as almost a film short instead of the suspenseful character study it has the potential to be.
Directed by Joel Schumacher who helmed two of the Batman franchise films, the film focuses on fast-talking New York publicist Stu Shepard (played by Colin Farrell), who is supposed to be the everyday asshole. Stu finds himself immediately trapped in a phone booth where he is then forced to examine his asshole life all at the hands of an unseen sniper.
The audience is supposed to be opposed to Stu because he’s supposed to be a bad person and the audience is supposed to feel glee when Stu is forced to examine his sleazy existence in a sometimes humiliating way. That’s fine, but the only problem is Colin Farrell isn’t the sleazy type. Regardless of his actions, Farrell comes across as too innocent and puppy dog-like to portray a detestable character. A better casting choice for the role of Stu would have been Ben Affleck. With Affleck’s untrustworthy plastic smile, he plays sleazy, bravado-heavy characters well, yet always seeming like an inexperienced boy beneath all the posturing. Farrell’s accent alone doesn’t sound anything like a New York accent. Instead Farrell speaks in an unknown accent with occasional Irish flavorings.
Phone Booth is full of archetypical characters that never transcend the clichés they represent. The scenes with the street prostitutes on 8th Avenue are pure camp. The prostitutes are mouthy and look like the Halloween version of a prostitute: completely tacky and sleazy, but nothing more than that. There’s no personality under all the trashiness. The scenes are campy because the actresses give exaggerated performances of what they think a prostitute should be. I’ve never met a prostitute, but I doubt that they’d be as idiotic as the ones in the film, who act like chickens with their heads just cut off. I’m not saying the prostitutes have to be sugary sweet like Julia Roberts’ prostitute in Pretty Woman, but at least the prostitutes should be dynamic.
The cops in the film come across as annoying assholes. They come across as not knowing which end is up. They’re empty archetypes too just like the prostitutes because they never transcend stereotypes. They’re just objects there for the purpose of saying “put your hands up.” The cops never come across as heroes, but as annoyances.
The format of Phone Booth as it is would suit the stage. It would probably have more impact if it was adapted into a stage play. Audiences watching the scenes unfold as a stage play would connect more with the characters, especially the main character of Stu. On a stage, the cast would acting in closer quarters and would be physically closer to each other. The closeness would allow the character of Stu to connect with his fellow characters through eye contact in one frame, which is what audience’s view a play in. There are no camera angles in a play. Each member of audience can focus on whatever they want, but at least they’re given that choice. A film tells the audience what they should see by giving the audience only one option depending on who the camera is on. Most of the camera shots in Phone Booth are close-ups or medium shots. The film’s lack of long shots shows that Schumacher was trying to achieve a claustrophobic effect, which he does. However, the limited setting mirrors the film’s stunted storyline.
The static setting of Stu in a phone booth for the majority of the film is one of its major flaws. The static setting gets boring after only a short time. Static settings have worked in films like Hitchcock’s Lifeboat and Rope, but static settings only work in films that have characters with depth. If the 81-minute film was made longer in length, the plot could be extended. If anything, the film should have more of a back-story, which means that Stu shouldn’t enter the phone booth until much later in the film. Too much of the information about Stu is told to the audience and not shown. For instance, Stu cries when he is forced to admit to his wife his infidelity, but the audience is given no reason to believe he cares about his wife at all because of the lack of a back-story.
Phone Booth would have worked better as a character study that leads up to a dramatic and possibly horrific climax a la Taxi Driver. The climax shouldn’t have been the entire film. The climax shouldn’t be a substitute for the plot. As a character study, the film could have made Stu Shepard the audience could feel sympathy for. One of the best literary effects is to make the audience’s sympathies towards characters change. Often one character inspires sympathy at the beginning, and the character who initially seems the least sympathetic ends up being the most sympathetic character in the story. Everything in Phone Booth is static, from the characters and plot to the setting. This film should be renamed Static, it would be much more appropriate.
The film has potential to be a decent film, but only if the script is completely rewritten with casting changes. Schumacher is a director who likes color and he uses color to create a flashy New York City. The visuals are there, but the script is not.
It wouldn’t be a bad idea to remake Phone Booth with a reconstructed script and better casting. It would hardly be a remake because if would essentially be a whole new film with the phone booth premise being an aspect of the film, and not the film’s focus. The focus should be on the main character Stu, not on the phone booth who steals the entire spotlight. If remade, it might be a wise idea to chuck the Phone Booth title in favor of a brand new title.
The film was set to being filmed inside of ten days, and this was the reason why this movie was not polished enough. Joel Schumacher does not rely stable image because for him there has to be something mysterious in image that is not revealed to the audience. By disguising the environment with rapidly changing camera shots, the audience can only follow to the main character perspective because the audience could not relate to the environment. Ironically, Joel Schumacher is reconstructing Stu character from arrogant businessman to victim that who does not know his tormenter. It is Stu’s past that makes him to be a tormenter too because he has tormented women in his life by infidelity, but Schumacher never reveals what did motivated Stu to do so.
ReplyDeleteWhen you mention that, “Phone Booth is full of archetypical characters that never transcend the clichés they represent”. Joel Schumacher is using extremely stereotypical characters to build suspense because these characters are something that the mainstream audience fears. Schumacher is using cheap tactics to create excitement and drama, but he uses these clichés in a new way. He turns these stereotypes to against themselves that they are same victims of the same environment, in which Stu has been captured. Stu is character that who is misplaced to the unknown environment, whereas polices and prostitutes are products of this environment. They have a motivation to act upon the stereotypes, but Stu does not have role to act upon.
As you mentioned “Everything in Phone Booth is static, from the characters and plot to the setting.” The stereotypical environment and the main character’s lack of control are describing how the modern culture itself is static. Phone Booth is not really static reflection of Joel Schumacher’s worldview, in contrary it is the commentary how western culture itself static. In the story, Kiefer Sutherland has a role of manipulator who is constructing a new role for Stu. Stu is a man with job that provides daily living for him, but it does not offer any satisfaction to him. And in the same time the relationship with another woman is corrupting his family life. Both of these women are not capable to fulfill their own roles. For Joel Schumacher, the people are silently living in social classes that are restricting people to live for the stereotypes.