New Philip Roth documentary doesn't quite 'unmask' him
By all accounts, 鈥�,鈥� is a wide-ranging and insightful documentary that celebrates the great writer and shines a spotlight on his distinguished career, with one major flaw: there鈥檚 very little actual 鈥渦nmasking.鈥�
The 90-minute film, which is timed to coincide with the author鈥檚 80th 聽birthday (March 19), will enjoy a weeklong theatrical premiere at the Film Forum in New York (March 13 to 19) before airing nationally March 29 on PBS stations as part of the series.
The film explores the life and work of the Pulitzer Prize-winning, two-time National Book Award winner from his Newark, N.J. childhood to his controversial, often sexually explicit psychoanalytical novels, to his 鈥渃urrent status as literary eminence and perennial Nobel candidate,鈥� .
In it, Roth friends and admirers reflect on the seminal novelist with reverence (though, it鈥檚 been said, not complete candor). Among them are the novelists Nicole Krauss and Jonathan Franzen, and friends Mia Farrow and Martin Garbus. Perhaps the most shining presence is Roth himself, who, for the first time, allowed the film鈥檚 crew to spend 10 days interviewing him on camera, both in New York and at his home in rural Connecticut.
The result is a vivid portrait of the novelist at his best: frank, forthright, feisty, funny. But, as many reviews have observed, it stops there. The film falls short of plumbing the more delicate and debated parts of Roth鈥檚 life and work (like his rocky relationships with women and his retirement) and ultimately fails to live up to its title.
As the writes, 鈥淗e is, for 90 minutes, marvelous company 鈥� expansive, funny, generous and candid鈥hough not unduly self-revealing 鈥� those interested in Mr. Roth鈥檚 relationships with women will have to await Blake Bailey鈥檚 authorized biography or else succumb to the irresponsible, irresistible vice of treating novels as source material.鈥�
As the 聽points out, 鈥�..Roth himself won't go down that road to compare himself to his major characters, nor does anyone else venture into his private life, as if it had been placed off-limits as a condition of the interview being granted.鈥�
Apart from that, the film鈥檚 other major glaring omission is that it leaves out all mention of Roth鈥檚 most high-profile announcement to date 鈥� his decision to retire from writing.
As the AP points out, not only does the film omit that major milestone, it depicts Roth as an active writer who declares he鈥檇 be miserable if he stopped writing.
鈥淚 keep doing it. I never quit,鈥� he says. 鈥淢y worst times are when I鈥檓 not writing. I鈥檓 prone then to be unhappy, depressed, anxious, and so on.鈥�
In fact, the prolific novelist, who鈥檚 written some 39 books, almost one per year, told a French magazine late last year that鈥檚 he鈥檚 finished. In subsequent media reports, he has said he鈥檚 happy to be done.
鈥淪omeone should have told me about this earlier,鈥� he jokingly told the in January, regarding his retirement.
(According to news reports, the film鈥檚 producer knew about Roth鈥檚 decision to retire, but didn鈥檛 imagine 鈥渋t would be such big news鈥� and doesn鈥檛 actually believe he鈥檚 given up writing for good.)
All in all, most reviews agree 鈥淯nmasked鈥� is a delightful and insightful look at a great American writer鈥檚 life and work 鈥� just not quite 鈥渦nmasked.鈥�
