In depth analysis (contains spoilers)

Rating: 9/10 (29 July 2001)

Having misunderstood the idea of the film (I thought it was to be a semi-autobiographical documentary), I was pleasantly surprised to follow the superb yarn which is Being John Malkovich'.
Its blend of irreverent yet subtle humour (that is reminiscent of Monty Python) draws you into the film immediately. Early on, as the puppeteer Craig Schwartz (John Cusack) is punched for his bizarrely delicate puppetry of a horny monk, we are introduced to the central irony of the film (to be passionate in any way is to be ridiculous) while also being made aware of a more serious image (the tragic isolation of the artist). The film tells its jokes  which all tend to ridicule ardent emotion in some way or another - with a straight face. John Malkovich is flattered and touched that one of his fans loved his portrayal of retard' Lenny (Of Mice and Men', 1992); yet the fan's passionate appreciation is belied by his insensitivity (his callous use of the term retard').
There follows a strong storyline punctuated with ugly  yet fascinating - humour: Schwartz (possessing Malkovich's body as if it were one of his puppets) and Maxine discuss making love on Malkovich's table before eating an omelette off it  `Nooo!' shouts Malkovich desperately as he momentarily regains control (the horror of the vulgar proposal giving him strength to break out through Schwarz) . Later we also watch in amazement as a chubby John Malkovich / Schwartz dances like a puppet for the entertainment of Maxine: hideous yet riveting.
Maxine (Catherine Keener), the ultimate callous bitch, is a superb character, acted well. We are given hints as to her insanity (such as the sex and omelette suggestion), but for the best part, she is simply an uncaring, heartless manipulator. She is vain to the point of obscenity  `to have two people staring at you with complete lust through the same pair of eyesit's quite a rush'. She toys with Schwartz and his wife, pitching them against each other in a love triangle of which she has complete control. In a film that ridicules emotion, she is the only character to come off without looking absurd  when she finally accepts her true love Lotty, it is a sombre and sincere moment, signifying that we are approaching the end of the tale.
The ability to control others is the main theme of the film. Maxine does so by making others desire her, and Schwartz is obsessed with getting inside the skin of others (as a puppeteer). This links the audience with the actors: we too are watching events unfold through the eyes of others. The film explores the way art can break down the barriers between self and other; how, for example, when watching a film you can empathise with a character  become them momentarily  but how, at the same time, they are becoming you (after watching `Betty Blue' (1986) how many women have felt psychotic?) It raises questions about selfhood: are we just one self, or are there many people inside' our minds, making us do things, or say things (friend and family for example, influencing the way we think)?
Schwartz is repressed: he can only experience things when he puts himself in the role of someone else and his ultimate punishment is complete repression (being trapped in a child's mind, unable to ever express himself through his vessel'). We get the impression that he is basically an good man, driven insane by his obsession with Maxine and what she represents (complete freedom from the pains and inhibitions of emotion). He claims `I don't want to be a monster' and he is, indeed, a lousy bad guy. He waits with a gun for his wife to come home, hiding under the table. Under a table in his own house! Then, he bursts out on her, falls over himself in his rush to grab her, by which time the element of surprise is lost, but it was not even necessary since she is completely unprepared to be assaulted by her own husband. The dance of his puppet ( a puppet which looks like himself ) is the manifestation of his failure as a man. `The Dance of Despair and Disillusionment' he calls it and it is an allegory of his despair at not being loved by Maxine (whom he loves, rather pathetically, because she is incapable of loving him back), and his disillusionment with the world that doesn't appreciate his art.
Cusack and Keener are amply backed up by Cameron Diaz, playing the innocent and vulnerable wife of Schwartz, who ultimately becomes Maxine's lover. It is a convincing performance by Diaz, which shows off her acting talent in a way that no other film has. Although she is unattractive - unrecognisable - for the whole film, she is very easy to watch.
Despite the absurdity of the plot premise (being, the existence of a tunnel which leads you into the mind of John Malkovich), the package we are presented with is so consistently well done, that it's easy to suspend one's disbelief. Elements of the basic cinematography such as the subtle, almost natural lighting (unlike a normal cinema film, particularly apparent in the Schwartz apartment) are easy on the eyes and brain. Throughout the film, you feel like you've been here before. Whether it is people moving like zombie aliens from some black and white 50's Sci-Fi film (as they navigate the 7 and a half-th floor with their arms flopping forward), or Malkovich singing Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich a la `Fabulous Baker Boys' (1989), we are on familiar screen territory. The Monty Python influence is more clearly seen on the DVD, with its quack anatomical diagrams.

Being John Malkovich' is a truly unique film. 10 / 10
John Malkovich's opens the door for Charlie Sheen: `Ma-Sheen!' `M-Alcatraz!'