"Why, Erica, Why?" Summer Movie Library Series: The Local Stigmatic

So about five years ago, Erica and I went to a T.G.I. Fridays in Gainesville for a dinner date and we decided that we were going to speak in British accents the entire time.

We didn’t plan it. We didn’t say to each other, "Hey, wouldn’t it be funny if we pretended like we were British tonight." We just randomly started doing it while we were waiting for our table. We even gave ourselves different, British-sounding (to us) names - I was Alistair and she was Moira. We actually kept it up through the entire date. (Well, almost: when the waitress came by to take our order, we chickened out at the exact same time and used our regular accents.)

Why am I sharing this odd and potentially-embarrassing anecdote to kick off my review of "The Local Stigmatic", the latest movie in the "Why, Erica,Why" Summer Movie Library Series? Because the movie also features misguided British accents and can be described as odd and potentially-embarrassing.

You see, our little English trip (or is it "holiday"?) to T.G.I. Fridays is hilarious to me and Erica and something that we’ll likely never forget. However, if somebody else had been watching us, the whole thing would’ve been indulgent, confusing and too insider-y. It’d be like watching "The Local Stigmatic."

The movie is based on a play by Heathcoate Williams. It’s a glimpse into the life of two disturbed, co-dependent individuals in England. Graham (Al Pacino) is a dog-racing enthusiast and talks a hell of a lot more than his lumbering companion Ray (Paul Guilfoyle of "CSI"). Together, they have confusing, loaded debates and decide they’re going to beat up a famous film actor (played by Joseph Maher) just because.

Pacino co-directed the movie with David F. Wheeler and his zest for the material is obvious and infectious (more on this in a bit). In fact, I’d probably argue that he’s probably a little too enthusiastic about the source play.

In casting himself as one of the two leads, he hijacks the material of much of its impact from the very second he opens his mouth. Besides how incredibly jarring it is to hear Pacino do a cockney accent (and it’s like a smack in the face), his very presence sort of undercuts what the story has to say about fame. It’s not even that his accent is that terrible (though it’s a little bad) - it’s more that Pacino is WAY too famous to pull it off. The entire time I’m thinking, "What is Al Pacino DOING?" "Is this a worse accent than Dick Van Dyke in "Chitty, Chitty, Bang, Bang?" "Hmm, I’m actually starting to get used to...oh wait, that was bad!" Notice that none of these thoughts have anything to do with what’s going on in the movie.

At least Pacino commits to his hot mess of a cockney accent. Guilfoyle’s is more passive (or you can say "understated" if you want to be nice), seeming to flit in and out during certain instances.

I’m not suggesting that Americanizing it would’ve been the way to go. Instead, if Pacino wanted to turn this play into an experimental film, I think he would’ve been better served using unknown actors.

Then again, what the two characters say is often cryptic, repetitive and seemingly inconsequential, so I didn’t really feel like I was missing out on much. I believe this is the first time in the history of the world that a 56-minute movie has felt tortuously overlong.

Thank goodness for the epilogue (featuring Al Pacino) that follows the movie on the DVD.

I won’t get too much into it, but Pacino eloquently speaks about the material with a modest passion and a hint of embarrassment that a lot of the greatest screen actors seem to possess. More importantly, he clears up a few things about the movie’s plot (or lack thereof), which actually made me appreciate what everyone involved was trying to accomplish. (I especially liked the idea that we were only checking in on the life of these two sociopaths, so it makes sense that they’d have a lot of shorthand we’re not privy to.)

The problem is that I believe a movie - whether it’s based on a book, based on a play, or even if it’s a sequel - should be able to mostly stand on its own. In this case, Erica and I (objectively semi-bright people, in my humble opinion) shouldn’t need Al Pacino to come on after the movie is done and explain what the hell just happened.

I don’t have a problem with being challenged (I kinda like it, actually) or movies that make you think. Hell, the movie’s only 56 minutes long, so I should be able to go back and see it again to catch what I missed, right? The problem is that the movie is so indulgent and intensely unpleasant that I wouldn’t necessarily want to see it for FIVE more minutes, much less 56.

In the end, "The Local Stigmatic" is more an interesting experiment than a good, effective movie. Just like pretending to be British on a date is more of an interesting experiment than a good, solid idea for a date.

The Local Stigmatic (without seeing the epilogue)...F
The Local Stigmatic (after seeing the epilogue)...C
The epilogue...A