I suspect that to understand how "The Edge" has any meaning outside of the fact that its an adventure story that takes place when three people end up stranded in the woods, one must be familiar with screenwriter David Mamet's earlier work. David Mamet has written some brilliant screenplays; "Glengarry Glen Ross", "Hoffa", "The Spanish Prisoner", and he co-wrote the script for "Wag the Dog". At first "The Edge" seems out of place among his work, but there are still blatant similarities between this film and Mamet's other films. Mamet enjoys playing around with the cliches of any genre. For instance after the three men, one of whom is black are stranded in the vast bush and mountainess terrain, its not difficult to guess that the black man is going to be the first killed. This is a stereotype that so many movies play into nowadays, not even realizing it. Good screenwriters realize these cliches and create subtle humor around them. There is much humor in "The Edge" even though the situation the men are placed in is by no means funny. In a scene between Charles (Anthony Hopkins) and Bob (Alec Baldwin), they are discussing how to 'lure' or bait the bear so that they have the possibility of killing it. Bob does a funny accent when he says the word 'lure'. It catches the audience off guard in the face of the tragedy that is really occurring. There are other moments like this as well. This is very typical of David Mamet.
There is also a sense of irony in the film in that the two men seem to be stalking each other, but they are simultaneously being stalked by a man eating "Kodiak" bear. The men, despite their obvious differences are forced into a situation where they must depend upon and trust each other for their survival. They need each other for survival, but by the end of the film, we know that survival to each man is a different thing. Bob needs Charles's intelligence to get them physically out their dangerous situation, but Charles needs Bob for survival in totally different terms. Charles need for Bob to survive is metaphorical. Charles needs to feel like a 'whole' man. All of Charles's experience and knowledge is from books that he constantly reads, but he wants to be able to do something bigger and better than that. Attempting to save Bob's life will do that for him.
In the end there is not a big show down, as many film goers may expect (no shoot outs, or verbal confrontations); I won't ruin it, but the ending is much more subtle than that, again very characteristic of David Mamet. To Mamet, there can be as much power and emotion felt in the simple exchange of a watch, as any kind of a verbal outburst or violent confrontation that has become so much a part of film today.
*** out of ****
There is also a sense of irony in the film in that the two men seem to be stalking each other, but they are simultaneously being stalked by a man eating "Kodiak" bear. The men, despite their obvious differences are forced into a situation where they must depend upon and trust each other for their survival. They need each other for survival, but by the end of the film, we know that survival to each man is a different thing. Bob needs Charles's intelligence to get them physically out their dangerous situation, but Charles needs Bob for survival in totally different terms. Charles need for Bob to survive is metaphorical. Charles needs to feel like a 'whole' man. All of Charles's experience and knowledge is from books that he constantly reads, but he wants to be able to do something bigger and better than that. Attempting to save Bob's life will do that for him.
In the end there is not a big show down, as many film goers may expect (no shoot outs, or verbal confrontations); I won't ruin it, but the ending is much more subtle than that, again very characteristic of David Mamet. To Mamet, there can be as much power and emotion felt in the simple exchange of a watch, as any kind of a verbal outburst or violent confrontation that has become so much a part of film today.
*** out of ****