The Bed You Sleep In (1993) User Reviews (5)

A flawed masterpiece...

[doug-may · 27 February 2003]

Don't give any credence to the other reviewer's comments. This film obviously overloaded his circuitry and left him with no recourse save the usual filmschool, cliched putdowns. He is correct about the film being puzzling, though. How could a director create such a gorgeous work of art and kill it with such a hamfisted ending? I suppose that in 1993 no one could have anticipated 10 years of prosecutorial misfeasance, brainwashed witnesses, the whole McMartin syndrome. So the Emerson quote, juxtaposed with the image of raped timberlands, must have seemed transparently cathartic and indictive of a paternalistic, failed American hegemony. Now, in 2003, when we know that children often tell lies, especially under the

prompting of "impartial" advocates with their own political agendas to advance, it seems merely unintentionally ironic. No matter. This movie is not about anything so obviously melodramatic as family secrets. It is, in fact, a grand symphonic ode to the American landscape and to the challenged lives of those who live mostly out-of-balance with nature. The long, magnificent static shots of urban and rural mis-en-scene are as perfectly integrated into the narrative as Ozu's earlier still-life compositions, and the human inhabitants of the Oregon town have as much dignity and grace as the Russian explorers in Dersu Uzala. Jost is the only American to have appropriated the meditative techniques of Tarkovsky, Angelopoulos and Bela Tarr and come close to succeeding on their level. So ignore the director's simple-minded, hippy-cum-leftist philosophy and just enjoy this film for its marvelous acting, technical panache and noble attempt to impose a formal filmic structure through long takes and ingenious editing.

Tragedy, inarticulate and incomprehensible

[OldAle1 · 9/10 · 10 November 2009]

Ray (Tom Blair) operates a lumber mill in central Oregon; times are tough and he's facing a lot of hard decisions, such as whether to work out a deal with overseas investors to bring in foreign wood and mill it and then ship it back to Asia. He struggles with his conscience, finding solace in fishing trips up in the unspoiled back-country, the irony of the contrast between what he does for a living and for relaxation apparently lost on him. His wife Jean (Ellen McLaughlin) spends time with her friend Beth, discussing how the troubling economic situation is affecting Beth's family - her husband is apparently violent - Jean seems lucky; Ray takes her on his trips and seems the loving husband, if not particularly open about things. But then their daughter writes to explain that she can't come home for Thanksgiving - can't, in fact, ever see Ray again, because of what her father once did to her...

My initial thoughts on this, my 4th film from stunning American avant-garde director Jon Jost: it's just slightly disappointing, in that it's not so radically different from the three other films I've seen as they are from each other; or, I've now seen enough of Jost's tricks that I'm not as surprised anymore. But that's a small criticism. A larger "problem" would be that the denouement and ending are a little too obvious and set-up, but I'm not sure that's a criticism either; this is Jost doing a sort of Old Testament morality play in a sense, and if you look closely at how he films people at odd angle - hands - men at work - the fly fishing rod and line, but not the man casting it - water - you may be reminded of another OT moralist, Robert Bresson. This strikes me as a Jost parable of guilt that is part MOUCHETTE, part L'ARGENT - the innocent (never seen) corrupted by capitalism and the American male's inability to communicate, to articulate, to forgive others or himself, to open up, to love. This in turn is reflected in the contrasts between the beauty of nature and it's corruption and destruction in the mills. The fatalism of a late Bresson is certainly in evidence here, if not the overt Catholic religiosity and spiritual guilt.

As usual, it's strikingly photographed by the director/writer/editor; this is his second (and last, to date) film in 35mm and it is gorgeous; the water (in particular during the fishing sequences), but also the windows, the sawmill and other industrial sites, reflections in mirrors - the whole film seems to be about images and reflections, about the distortions in the way we see each other, distortions because of money, because of our obsessions with work, "getting ahead", because we don't really ever see each other clearly, because we can't, don't want to, don't even try to. I'm not sure that there are any scenes here of two people talking, seen clearly together in the same shot, everything is fractured or mirrored or seen from just one point of view. Even in the most impressive single shot of the film, a long and intricate track through a diner full of people, we don't see any serious conversations - everybody seems distracted, or trying to impress, or just not really thinking. Together - but not understanding.

The cast is exceptional; Blair is every bit as good as he was in SURE FIRE, and I think there's more for him to do here - the scene in which Jean confronts him and forces him to hear his daughter's words of accusation is particularly powerful, as Jean grows in power and Ray retreats, like a whipped dog, his face growing ashen and actually looking hollow, seeming to age years in just a minute. McLaughlin is excellent as well; this is probably the most potent role and performance for a woman I've seen in any of the director's fairly male-centric work.

It's a little too neat and concise in the end, and the quotation from Emerson seems a little over-the-top and unnecessary, so all in all this is not my favorite of the director's films at the moment, but it's a strong work and reconfirms my sense that this is one of our greatest filmmakers; would that enough people felt that way so that he felt he could continue to make features.

........

[polysicsarebest · 10/10 · 27 June 2009]

WOW!!!!!!!!!! I've never seen anything like this. This is so brilliant that it's ridiculous. Beautiful imagery... very twisted, seemingly pointless, abrasive, and sloooooooow. Not for everyone. Hell, not for most people...

But somehow it works. I don't know how, to be honest. This film eventually settles into a groove and you are highly rewarded for watching. This is definitely a film that works on many levels. Many layers to unravel and one viewing is not enough.

I loved it. Will you? No. Jon Jost is a god, a genius, and probably the most important independent director in the history of North American cinema. Go worship Jim Jarmusch or Guy Maddin if you must but for real GENIUS, check here. One of the best films ever.

Waste of time.

[Zoomorph · 2/10 · 31 December 2021]

There is a single positive thing that I can think of to say about this movie, and that is that it has some slight value in terms of pretty still shots of a small town in the Northwest in the 1990s and of the machinery in the mill. Perhaps if the film was re-edited into a 15 minute documentary about this subject it could be considered a good film.

Unfortunately, everything else about this film is poorly done. The acting is terrible with stiff, unbelievable characters that the viewer does not care about. The plot is particularly terrible, consisting of only a handful of dramatic scenes which are poorly related and leave the viewer to guess at what the purpose was and try to piece together the story for himself. The ending is unbelievable. Most of the the film is long still shots of random stuff around the town such as traffic driving by, and is tedious and leaves the viewer wondering why they are wasting their time watching this. Then there are a small number of "artsy" shots with a moving camera that feel completely out-of-place in the film and convey that someone is trying too hard to put some artistic shots into a generally terrible film.

The film is long, boring, vapid, pointless. It has very little artistic value or value of any sort. Comparisons to any great film director are absurd and likely made in jest. This film has amateurism written all over it and I was saddened by the end credits as I thought maybe this was a project that Jost did all by himself on a $5 budget in his spare time, but it looks like there were actually a few other people involved in this producing this junk.

I would suggest that the prospective viewer sit on their deck and watch traffic drive by for 2 hours while pondering pretty much any topic of interest: that would be a more profound and valuable use of time than watching this.

I was under the assumption it was a serious movie, but then I realized it was a comedy...

[mitzi_golf2002 · 18 June 2004]

For all of you "The Bed You Sleep In" fans...What is wrong with both of you!? LOL! I truly believe that everyone in this movie was on Valium. It has to be the slowest movie I have ever forced myself to watch to the end. I still can't believe I made it through the whole thing without falling asleep. There was one scene in a restaurant where the camera started shooting from the first point, and slowly made it's way around the circumference of the room, showing, plates, bowls, walls, people, doors, a paper bag, tables, chairs, counters, the camera finally made it back to the beginning after taking what seemed like an eternity, then began going around the restaurant again! Everyone in the movie talked in slow motion, pausing after every third word. There were shots of the town, which would seem like forever and for what reason? Like, shots of a side of an old building, shot of a town street, etc. The only way I would recommend this movie to anyone is if they were having trouble sleeping.