On My Shelf: Multiplicity (1996)
Once in awhile, I get an urge to watch this movie -- because Michael Keaton is a good actor.
And that's basically the only reason. (Multiplicity isn't very good).
PLOT: Michael Keaton is a building contractor whose life is stretched to its limits. His boss wants him at work all the time -- and his wife wants him at home all the time -- and he has no time for himself. He's at the breaking point... until a scientist at a building he is working on offers him a unique opportunity that will help him get done all the things he needs to get done... he offers to make him a clone of himself. An adult clone who will have all of his memories and knowledge, and can help him get things done. ... And this works out as well as you would expect in a comedy film.
This is one of a number of Harold Ramis-directed movies that I always forget is a Harold Ramis movie -- but it kind of makes sense if you think of his other films, like Groundhog Day and Bedazzled. It's very much in the same vein; guy with personality problems has supernatural intervention and learns to be a better person. It's A Christmas Carol, again and again, without the Christmas. That's it, in a nutshell.
And like Bedazzled.... this movie isn't as good a movie as Groundhog Day.
Moral Problems
I think one of the basic (and unanswered) problems of the film is that the premise is just a bit on the morally disturbing side. Our "hero" creates clones of himself -- essentially to be his slaves. They're not robots; they're full human beings with thoughts and desires and needs (not to mention all his memories, thoughts and wishes -- including memories of being married to a woman and having children with her) but are treated like possessions. This particular aspect is glossed-over and ignored for the sake of the plot.
And (the cruelest part of all) as far as these clones are concerned, inside their heads, they are him. They have been separated from their families and forced to live as outcasts. (This is a comedy movie, of course, so -- like I said -- this particular aspect is pretty much glossed over.)
I guess it wouldn't have been a very fun comedy
if the clones stood up for their human rights or just sat around crying all the time.Movie Problems
Aside from the all the moral issues aside... there are some basic movie structure problems with the film. A big one being, it's kind of hard to like Michael Keaton.
Now, don't get me wrong. I LIKE MICHAEL KEATON. I like Michael Keaton in movies I don't even want to watch. But the character he plays in this film comes across as unlikeable. And his wife isn't extremely likeable herself -- she's a cliche movie wife who flips out/obsesses over really minor things. Ultimately, both characters are very self-centered, and it's hard to be sympathetic to either one.
Another problem is that as when the first clone arrives, our hero starts acting less like a real human being. He gets more stilted and stagey -- probably a directorial choice to help clarify the difference between the two identical characters. This solves the problem of differentiating them -- and creates a new one, that our hero instantly is even less likeable and less human. Also, the first clone is just a bit more rough-around-the-edges version of our original Michael Keaton (who just comes across as a selfish jerk anyway) which means, you don't really like the clone, either.
Flowing from that, it really feels like the movie doesn't get going, or get really funny, until the second clone arrives (which is about half-way through the movie). The second clone is the "sensitive" (aka anal retentive and effeminate) one; he provides a nice counterpoint to the first two, because he has a substantially different personality. That's when the movie finally starts being funny, and that's quite a ways in.
I'm not even going to address the third clone,
as he was clearly just written for comic relief.(Also...this might just a problem for me, but... **Spoiler: it turns out the reason the wife is ultimately upset is that he keeps promising to fix up their house and failing to do so. This is revealed at the end of the movie, after a brief mention at the beginning of the movie that their water heater is broken and he's too tired to fix it. The big problem with this, to me, is that a) his not fixing it was really a reasonable thing at the time, he was exhausted; and b) they aren't living in a ramshackle shack -- they were just living in a neat, eclectic-looking older house. When he finally goes to fix it up, I was like -- "Wait, what? Their house needed fixing? Why?" -- and he turns a neat eclectic-looking older house into a very generic-looking 1990's house. It could be that this is only a problem retrospectively -- i.e. who wants a house that generic and 90's-looking? -- or, like I said, that this is just a problem for me, since I happen to like neat, older houses.)
The Movie's Saving Grace
The real saving grace of this movie is just one thing -- the performances by Michael Keaton. Honestly, he does a fabulous job of creating four distinct personalities. But it's not as obvious until the second clone comes along; the first clone is different from the original Michael Keaton, but in a more subtle way to begin with (probably to avoid tipping the hand too early about the direction the plot is going to go). Everything about the four forms of him are distinct and different -- their tones of voice, the way they move, the way they facially react to things -- it's just a treat to watch him.
As Clone 1, he's rugged and abrasive; as Clone 2, he's mincing and delicate; and as Clone 3, he clearly has developmental impairments -- right down to the way he acts when getting rained on, or walks up a staircase. And as the original character, he has elements of all of them -- and yet is a distinctly different, more whole character. It's amazing.
(I will say, as a side-note, that there are two points I spotted when the special effects look a little crappy -- and that would be during two, short scenes where all four versions of him are in the shot at the same time. You can see a bit of a blue-screen edge around a couple of them and it's not quite perfect. But, all and all, they did a surprisingly good job -- and Michael Keaton did a pretty good job of acting in scenes playing multiple characters.)
In Summary...
I have seen worse movies. But I've also seen better movies. So, if you happen to be a die-hard Michael Keaton fan, or just really, really want to see a good performance by an actor, I do recommend this movie. If you want to see a movie that's every bit as good as Groundhog Day... ummmm.... look, just watch Groundhog Day. Or A Christmas Carol. The unaddressed moral issues in this movie leave kind of a sour taste, and the ultimate wrap-up feels kind of hastily-written-in (like, "We've got to have some kind of a big finisher for this story! What can we do to show that he's finally reformed himself...?" "Oh, just have him fix up the house." "The house? Was it broken or something?" "Look, just write in a line earlier about how he's too tired to fix up the water heater -- that's all the foreshadowing we need, that ought to do it.") But I have to stress again that I really, really enjoy watching Michael Keaton's performance in this movie, so in the end it's...
RECOMMENDED(with a lot of reservations, and in a very luke-warm fashion)
And that's basically the only reason. (Multiplicity isn't very good).
PLOT: Michael Keaton is a building contractor whose life is stretched to its limits. His boss wants him at work all the time -- and his wife wants him at home all the time -- and he has no time for himself. He's at the breaking point... until a scientist at a building he is working on offers him a unique opportunity that will help him get done all the things he needs to get done... he offers to make him a clone of himself. An adult clone who will have all of his memories and knowledge, and can help him get things done. ... And this works out as well as you would expect in a comedy film.
This is one of a number of Harold Ramis-directed movies that I always forget is a Harold Ramis movie -- but it kind of makes sense if you think of his other films, like Groundhog Day and Bedazzled. It's very much in the same vein; guy with personality problems has supernatural intervention and learns to be a better person. It's A Christmas Carol, again and again, without the Christmas. That's it, in a nutshell.
And like Bedazzled.... this movie isn't as good a movie as Groundhog Day.
Moral Problems
I think one of the basic (and unanswered) problems of the film is that the premise is just a bit on the morally disturbing side. Our "hero" creates clones of himself -- essentially to be his slaves. They're not robots; they're full human beings with thoughts and desires and needs (not to mention all his memories, thoughts and wishes -- including memories of being married to a woman and having children with her) but are treated like possessions. This particular aspect is glossed-over and ignored for the sake of the plot.
And (the cruelest part of all) as far as these clones are concerned, inside their heads, they are him. They have been separated from their families and forced to live as outcasts. (This is a comedy movie, of course, so -- like I said -- this particular aspect is pretty much glossed over.)
I guess it wouldn't have been a very fun comedyif the clones stood up for their human rights or just sat around crying all the time.Movie Problems
Aside from the all the moral issues aside... there are some basic movie structure problems with the film. A big one being, it's kind of hard to like Michael Keaton.
Now, don't get me wrong. I LIKE MICHAEL KEATON. I like Michael Keaton in movies I don't even want to watch. But the character he plays in this film comes across as unlikeable. And his wife isn't extremely likeable herself -- she's a cliche movie wife who flips out/obsesses over really minor things. Ultimately, both characters are very self-centered, and it's hard to be sympathetic to either one.
Another problem is that as when the first clone arrives, our hero starts acting less like a real human being. He gets more stilted and stagey -- probably a directorial choice to help clarify the difference between the two identical characters. This solves the problem of differentiating them -- and creates a new one, that our hero instantly is even less likeable and less human. Also, the first clone is just a bit more rough-around-the-edges version of our original Michael Keaton (who just comes across as a selfish jerk anyway) which means, you don't really like the clone, either.
Flowing from that, it really feels like the movie doesn't get going, or get really funny, until the second clone arrives (which is about half-way through the movie). The second clone is the "sensitive" (aka anal retentive and effeminate) one; he provides a nice counterpoint to the first two, because he has a substantially different personality. That's when the movie finally starts being funny, and that's quite a ways in.
I'm not even going to address the third clone, as he was clearly just written for comic relief.(Also...this might just a problem for me, but... **Spoiler: it turns out the reason the wife is ultimately upset is that he keeps promising to fix up their house and failing to do so. This is revealed at the end of the movie, after a brief mention at the beginning of the movie that their water heater is broken and he's too tired to fix it. The big problem with this, to me, is that a) his not fixing it was really a reasonable thing at the time, he was exhausted; and b) they aren't living in a ramshackle shack -- they were just living in a neat, eclectic-looking older house. When he finally goes to fix it up, I was like -- "Wait, what? Their house needed fixing? Why?" -- and he turns a neat eclectic-looking older house into a very generic-looking 1990's house. It could be that this is only a problem retrospectively -- i.e. who wants a house that generic and 90's-looking? -- or, like I said, that this is just a problem for me, since I happen to like neat, older houses.)
The Movie's Saving Grace
The real saving grace of this movie is just one thing -- the performances by Michael Keaton. Honestly, he does a fabulous job of creating four distinct personalities. But it's not as obvious until the second clone comes along; the first clone is different from the original Michael Keaton, but in a more subtle way to begin with (probably to avoid tipping the hand too early about the direction the plot is going to go). Everything about the four forms of him are distinct and different -- their tones of voice, the way they move, the way they facially react to things -- it's just a treat to watch him.
As Clone 1, he's rugged and abrasive; as Clone 2, he's mincing and delicate; and as Clone 3, he clearly has developmental impairments -- right down to the way he acts when getting rained on, or walks up a staircase. And as the original character, he has elements of all of them -- and yet is a distinctly different, more whole character. It's amazing.
(I will say, as a side-note, that there are two points I spotted when the special effects look a little crappy -- and that would be during two, short scenes where all four versions of him are in the shot at the same time. You can see a bit of a blue-screen edge around a couple of them and it's not quite perfect. But, all and all, they did a surprisingly good job -- and Michael Keaton did a pretty good job of acting in scenes playing multiple characters.)
In Summary...
I have seen worse movies. But I've also seen better movies. So, if you happen to be a die-hard Michael Keaton fan, or just really, really want to see a good performance by an actor, I do recommend this movie. If you want to see a movie that's every bit as good as Groundhog Day... ummmm.... look, just watch Groundhog Day. Or A Christmas Carol. The unaddressed moral issues in this movie leave kind of a sour taste, and the ultimate wrap-up feels kind of hastily-written-in (like, "We've got to have some kind of a big finisher for this story! What can we do to show that he's finally reformed himself...?" "Oh, just have him fix up the house." "The house? Was it broken or something?" "Look, just write in a line earlier about how he's too tired to fix up the water heater -- that's all the foreshadowing we need, that ought to do it.") But I have to stress again that I really, really enjoy watching Michael Keaton's performance in this movie, so in the end it's...
RECOMMENDED(with a lot of reservations, and in a very luke-warm fashion)
No comments have been added yet.
