I saw a pre-screening of “Bobby” tonight. As part of my “getting back all the initiation fee I paid the Union” strategem, I’m again taking in a showing of a film offered by said Union. What an amazing piece of cinema. An enormous and distinguished cast, beautiful cinematography and an extraordinary script. Written and directed by Emilio Estevez and deftly lensed by Michael Barrett, the story revolves around the day leading up to Senator Bobby Kennedy’s speech the night of his assassination.
View the trailer: http://www.apple.com/trailers/weinstein/bobby/
At first, I was quite taken by the movie (and for the most part, I still am) but it was a review I read last night that made me wonder a little bit if a title chance would have been more appropriate. As I said, the movie revolves mostly around the day leading up to the speech and the people at the Ambassador Hotel where the speech is delivered and very little about “Bobby” himself. He is tangential to the story and so I wonder too if the title shouldn’t have been “the Ambassador”? I know, more people are likely to see it with a name like “Bobby”, still I can’t help but feel a little manipulated by the choice of title and assumed subject matter. Irrespective of my views, it’s a fantastic movie worth seeing. If you’re not moved, you’re a lump of coal.
As a side note, there was a Q&A with the cinematographer after the screening. A few things that are worth mentioning include: The film was mostly handheld or on SteadiCam with someone wobbling the mag to give it some shakes every now and again. It was shot in 38 days (if I heard correct) which was quite a piece of work given the size of the cast. It was shot for around $5 million (although, IMDB says it was $10 million). Demolition on the hotel was stopped to shoot some exteriors which were later matte painted to the period of the film. Not too bad for a reasonably low budget film of this scope and content.
Comments (0)