Film Review: 13 Conversations About One Thing

  "13 Conversations About One Thing"

 **** (out of ****)

Jill Sprecher's  "13 Conversations  About One Thing" isn't exactly about one thing but rather is an exploration into themes of happiness, chance and morality in an immediate post 9/11 America.

It's tempting to compare Sprecher's film to the work of Robert  Altman. "13 Conversations" is a sprawling film featuring a large cast  with interconnecting storylines but unlike an  Altman film - "Short Cuts" (1993) for example - "13 Conversations" doesn't feel improvised or free flowing. Instead this is a tightly structured film that is philosophical in its method. The Altman comparison merely elevates the talent of Sprecher to signify what an achievement her sophomore feature-length effort is. There is no denying "13 Conversations" is a masterpiece and the work of a brilliant filmmaker. I was so captivated by this film back in 2002 that I placed it on my year end top ten list, in the number two spot. 

A lot of critics leaned a little too far on the happiness leitmotif, like Chicago Sun-Times movie critic Roger Ebert, who began his review with "Happiness is the subject of  "13 Conversations About One Thing". For that matter, happiness is the subject of every conversation we ever have: the search for happiness, the envy of happiness, the loss of happiness, the guilt of happiness." "13 Conversations" is a little wider in its scope asking multiple questions - what is the meaning of life? Why do bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people? What role does happenstance and chance play in our lives? Sprecher is able to probe the answers to these questions by orchestrating a delicate mixture between hard hitting emotional drama and something not quite whimsical but light hearted. In tone it recalls not  Altman but is closer to Woody Allen, who has explored the importance of fate and chance in our lives in films such as  "Match Point" (2005) and "You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger" (2010).

"13 Conversations" doesn't have a "lead" character but if one character could be considered the "anchor" of the film it would be Gene (Alan Arkin), an insurance claims manager. Gene is presented as an everyman who has his share of problems - he's divorced, his son is a drug addict, he's getting pressure from upper management over budget concerns - and yet he is surrounded by people that have good fortune falling into their lap. When will it be his turn? What makes these people more deserving than him? Sprecher, and I am sure with input from Arkin, treat these scenes with a wry smile instead of going full on Book of Job. Arkin, a Chicago Second City alumni, who built a persona on dry humor, knew how to find the understated humor in frustration and exasperation.

Gene and his coworkers have branded a fellow employee, Bowman as  "Smiley" (William Wise). Bowman is a middle-aged, slightly overweight but jovial guy, who is always praising his wife and kids by spreading news of their good fortune. He isn't doing it in a malicious way or trying to rub his good luck into anyone's face, he's just a proud and happy father. But if you're a guy like Gene and his coworkers, a sunny disposition can become irritating. Gene can't understand how a guy can be so happy? It must be a façade. This is the same kind of illogical thinking that leads some to wonder if a person can be "too nice". Gene however thinks he knows of a way to wipe that smile off of Bowman's face.

Sprecher takes this amusing tale and contrasts it with something more Dostoevskian, the story of a young and successful lawyer named Troy (Matthew McConaughey). As the Gods would have it, one day Troy meets Gene at a bar. Troy is riding high after winning a case, which he enthusiastically declares there being one less bad guy on the streets. Gene congratulates him on his good luck but the hot shot lawyer doesn't believe in luck. It was his hard work that paid off because you see, the law holds everyone accountable. Everyone that is, except Troy. Later that night, while driving home, he strikes a pedestrian and leaves the scene without notifying the police. Will an overwhelming sense of guilt and morality be Troy's downfall? Can he get away with murder?

These two characters are the heart and soul of the film for me. The other characters are extensions of their dilemmas. Take for example a married professor, Walker (John Turturro), who flat out confesses that he doesn't know what he wants out of life. He initially says he wants to be happy but how does one achieve happiness? Is it by cheating on his wife (Amy Irving)? That eventually doesn't bring him the joy and meaning he was looking for. It is quite possible Walker wouldn't know happiness even if he experienced it, because he doesn't know what it feels like to begin with. He is what is known as a "lost soul", a person on an endless journey, who mistakes "contentment" for "boredom". 

Then there is Beatrice (Clea DuVall), a young woman who had a near death experience as a child, and since then has not only looked on the bright side of things but has sought the deeper spiritual meaning behind our lives. In one scene we see her sing with a choir at church. But like the lawyer, she will be tested. How strong are her beliefs?

Some of these stories end sadly while others appear unresolved, however it is the film's final moment which makes its greatest commentary: all any of us want is to be seen. No matter how good or bad our luck may seem, no matter how overwhelming the obstacles thrown at us may be, there is comfort in knowing we are not invisible in this world. All that is required is something as simple as waving at a stranger, a brief moment of human connection.

Moments like the ending are balanced against scenes between Walker and one of his students - a class clown who eventually worries about his grades and getting into med school. The student is the mirror image of Walker. When the young man relays a list of personal problems he is going through, Walker is blinded by his own troubles and an inability to relate to others - his wife, his mistress and his students. He is not there to provided that much needed moment of human interaction.

It was a feeling of invisibility and great pain that lead Jill Sprecher to co-write this screenplay with her sister, Karen and direct the film. While living in New York, Sprecher faced many difficult moments such as being mugged twice - one of the incidents actually required surgery - and once hit on the subway. It was while on that same subway train a stranger smiled at her. Within that brief moment Sprecher felt consoled to know there were still nice people in the world.

For a lot of movie critics "13 Conversations" lacks a visual flair and a feeling of importance - one critic called it "a dry, dim looking film". This kind of thinking blatantly misses the point of the film. Technically dazzling it is not but "13 Conversation" is richly conceived and full of ideas. Sprecher's background as a philosophy and literature major is evident in the film's structure. Like a novel the film has intertitles which serve as chapters, and each chapter centers around a character and concept.

This does not mean there aren't some good visuals or Sprecher doesn't know how to convey themes with her camera. My favorite involves a moment when Walker is explaining entropy - as good a word as any to describe this film - to his class and writes the word "irreversible" on a chalkboard but later the word is erased. Nothing is permanent or irreversible and it becomes a lesson these characters learn, the value of your life is based on perspective. Your path in life is not irreversible, a simple gesturing like waving at a stranger, could potentially set you off in a new direction.

Perspective is also something implied in the film's title. The number 13 is considered unlucky in many cultures, especially in America - Friday the 13th - but positive in others, like Italy for example. In an interview with MovieMaker magazine,  Sprecher admits the decision to add 13 in the title was a deliberate choice made by her and her sister, which would allow audiences to decide if 13 was positive or negative. This was something I didn't come across in any movie reviews I read. No one took time to question why the number 13 was selected and its implications.

Sprecher also knows how to visualize isolation and separating characters from their environment, as in the insurance claim office scenes by routinely having her camera shoot frames within a frame as Gene looks out at his co-workers while in his own office. "13 Conversations" also utilizes different colors to reflect character's moods and inner emotions - neutral for Gene, blue for Troy, golden hues for Beatrice...etc.  It lacks the excitement of the French New Wave - handheld camera and jump cuts - but Sprecher's approach gets the film's themes across and puts us in a proper state of mind to psychologically understand her characters.

There is some gratification in knowing others saw the craft in "13 Conversations". Arkin's performance was singled out in many reviews. He won nominations from many film critic society awards for supporting actor. Both he and Sprecher's screenplay were nominated for an Independent Spirit Award. It was even listed as one of the year's best films by the National Board of Review and critic Roger Ebert. And yet that makes it all the maddening to realize Sprecher's career was cut short afterwards.

"13 Conversations" was Sprecher's follow-up film to "Clockwatchers" (1997), a generally well received effort about female office temp workers. "13 Conversations" was a more ambitious undertaking and the work of a more confident filmmaker.  In Ebert's review of the film he paid Sprecher a tremendous compliment by writing, "After these two movies, there aren't many filmmakers whose next film I anticipate more eagerly. " Sprecher however wouldn't direct another feature length film until 2011's "Thin Ice", which Sprecher would eventually disown, claiming the studio took the film away from her.

There was a remarkable documentary a few years ago called "This Changes Everything" (2018). It focused on sexism in Hollywood and the obstacles female directors must overcome. A significant portion of it centered on Sprecher and her career. Watching the documentary made me so angry to think how Hollywood cuts short the careers of talented artists. Sprecher should have had a thriving career with at least ten films under her belt by now. Instead both she and her sister are writers for hire, with no feature length film credits since "Thin Ice".

What is worse than Hollywood's treatment of talented artists, is the silence from movie critics. No critic I can think of actually claims to support censorship but gosh they sure are quiet when it happens in front of their eyes. If movie critics don't stand up for art and great artists, exactly who is supposed to?

In the twenty-four years that have followed since the release of "13 Conversations About One Thing", I have never forgotten it. Like Ebert, I also eagerly awaited the next film from Sprecher. As the years passed, I just figured she had trouble raising money. It hadn't occurred to be sexism was playing a role. In my naïve mind I thought Sprecher's talent made her immune to such prejudice.  

"13 Conversations" is a smart, engaging and philosophical film. It makes us ponder life's big questions and comes to no easy conclusions about human behavior. Sprecher showed technical craft by understanding how to visualize psychology on-screen, while also being able to get natural performances out of her actors, especially DuVall and Arkin. She is a talent that is sorely missed in Hollywood.