In Contention

Author: Guy Lodge

  • Not getting it

    Red West in Goodbye SoloA little over six months ago, I saw “Goodbye Solo,” Ramin Bahrani’s highly regarded fourth feature film, at the London Film Festival. As I said in my capsule review at the time, I found several elements to like in this genial, commendably sincere work — not least a greatly moving performance from 71 year-old former stuntman Red West — but found the whole overextended and dramatically underpowered. Narrative parallels to Kiarostami’s masterful “A Taste of Cherry” did Bahrani’s film no favours in my mind either.

    Anyway, after being mildly appreciative while watching it, I promptly forgot about “Goodbye Solo” altogether. That is, until last week, when its limited U.S. release was greeted with such breathless critical adulation — Roger Ebert and A.O. Scott are just two of the poetically enthusing critics contributing to the film’s lofty Metacritic score of 88 — that I began to wonder if I had lost the plot altogether.

    What resonance have I missed in Bahrani’s slight, bittersweet narrative? Why does the minimalism of “Goodbye Solo” strike me as self-conscious, where the similar approach of, say, “Wendy and Lucy” feels wholly organic? Is it a film that might repay the effort of multiple viewings? All are questions that have run through my head. I was interested, however, to read this Huffington Post piece by Marshall Fine that suggests I’m not the only one scratching my head over this. Calling the film the most overrated of 2009 so far, Fine continues:

    Turgid and uneventful, built around two characters of opposite demeanor whose paths temporarily reach a confluence, Goodbye Solo is another under-paced, under-dramatized film that falls into “neo-neo-realism” category that A.O. Scott went on about at such great lengths in a recent Sunday Times magazine piece.

    Say what you will about the so-called mumblecore school of filmmaking — with its slapdash aesthetic and endless self-regarding conversations — but at least those movies seem to have something on their minds, beyond creating a mood. Goodbye Solo, however, is a thin character study over which critics wank themselves into a state of ecstasy at all the meaning they can superimpose on the film — sort of the way people imagined that the emperor was wearing beautiful clothes.

    (more…)

  • Thoughts on ‘The Burning Plain’

    Charlize Theron in The Burning PlainI’ve been meaning to review Guillermo Arriaga’s directorial debut ever since I saw it two weeks ago, but for some reason, my thoughts on the film just won’t settle into place.

    It’s not a case of the film being particularly challenging or impenetrable — it’s Arriaga’s most structurally simple work to date, and arguably his most middlebrow too. I am, however, having trouble gauging precisely what the renowned screenwriter’s aspirations for the project were.

    If his intention was to make a searching character study for an arthouse audience, one that examines the occasionally mirroring intricacies of mother-daughter relationships from opposite ends of a slow-burning narrative candle, I’d have to deem the film an ambitious misfire, one that is too transparent in structure and thin in characterisation to bear the weight of its literary tropes.

    It is possible, however, that for his first outing in the director’s chair, the creator of such opaque, thematically dense narratives as “Amores Perros” and “21 Grams” was looking to safely downshift gears by making a tasteful, intelligent mainstream melodrama, one that operates more as an actors’ showcase than a writer’s (or filmmaker’s) platform. If so, the “The Burning Plain” — a generally compelling, well-crafted piece graced with a focused, charismatic trio of female performances — largely fulfils such a brief.

    (more…)

  • Is Clarkson one to watch for ‘Whatever Works?’

    Evan Rachel Wood and Patricia Clarkson in Whatever WorksAs Penélope Cruz, Dianne Wiest, Mira Sorvino and assorted nominees over the years can attest, if you’re an actress hungry for some awards attention, you can do a lot worse than take a supporting role in an (at least) halfway decent Woody Allen film. (Unless, of course, you’re Scarlett Johansson, who’s still holding an IOU for her startling work in “Match Point.”)

    Allen’s latest, “Whatever Works,” has just been unveiled at ShoWest, and while much of the advance speculation has been centred on leading lady Evan Rachel Wood, I’ve heard a couple of informal reports that, in accordance with the aforementioned trend, Patricia Clarkson could be the story here. Which wouldn’t be a surprise, of course; she’s a great actress, and the film apparently gives her a chance to play entertainingly against type.

    Judging from this faintly spoiler-ish description from a contributor at Nat Rogers’ Film Experience site, it sounds like a pretty showy role:

    Patricia Clarkson storms into the movie after approximately 40 minutes, and plays a role in many ways comparable to Penélope Cruz’s tempestuous Oscar-winning Maria Elena. While I was initially skeptical of Allen’s treatment of Wood as a young Lolita, Clarkson actually plays the much more sexualized character. After showing up on Boris’s doorstep in a hot pink ensemble (scrunchy included!) fit for the Southern pageant circuit, she is quickly awakened to the culture of New York … Her character transitions from praising Jesus to opening an exhibit of nude collages. Clarkson is dynamic and sexy and once again demonstrates her unbeatable range. I don’t think it is any stretch to consider her worthy of this year’s Oscar race.

    (more…)

  • Eckhart to join Kidman in ‘Rabbit Hole’

    Aaron EckhartNow this, to my mind, is a star pairing that really makes sense. Nicole Kidman has been attached for some time to star in the screen adaptation of “Rabbit Hole,” David Lindsay-Abaire’s stage play that was awarded the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for Drama. Aaron Eckhart is now reportedly in talks to play opposite her.

    The project represents a major dramatic opportunity for both stars: the play, which is said to be funnier than the thematic material suggests, revolves around a happily married couple forced to re-evaluate their relationship when their young son is killed in car accident. Cynthia Nixon (who won a Tony for her efforts) and John Slattery originated the roles on Broadway — I guess it’s fair to say the casting has been prettied up for film, but what’s new?

    Personally, I’m excited at the prospect of Eckhart getting a role with some significant emotional range to tackle, and for some reason, I imagine his everyman quality and Kidman’s nervous reserve complementing each other nicely. Kidman, meanwhile, continues to choose the most interesting projects but it’s been a while since she had a really meaty dramatic lead in this vein — I’d love to see her pull something sufficiently riveting out the bag to stem the (unwarranted, in my opinion) backlash against her.

    Meanwhile, the project may be an even more intriguing proposal for its director than for its stars. John Cameron Mitchell’s “Hedwig and the Angry Inch” and “Shortbus” have won him a legion of admirers, but this promises to be a very different kettle of fish from those gleefully in-your-face efforts. I’m intrigued to see what he does with more muted material that he hasn’t originated himself. (Lindsay-Abaire will be adaptating his own work.) One to watch, for sure.

  • Cannes-bound?

    With the “news” (which has, of course, been common knowledge for the better part of a year) that Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds” is set to compete at Cannes, it’s time to start contemplating what else might appear in the festival lineup.

    For my money, one of the safest bets has to be Ken Loach’s latest, “Looking For Eric.” A comedy centred on a working-class football fanatic who receives life coaching from legendary French footballer Eric Cantona, it looks like a refreshingly fanciful departure for a filmmaker celebrated usually for bleaker social-realist fare. That may not exactly sound like a festival gimme, but it’s been almost two decades since a Loach feature didn’t compete at one of the three major European fests — Cannes being the most hospitable of his work.

    Loach has an enviable track record at the Croisette — though 2005’s “The Wind That Shakes The Barley,” which finally netted him the Palme d’Or after eight attempts, never really caught on after the festival. The chirpy teaser below suggests to me that “Looking For Eric” may find more of an audience, even if it’s less award-friendly than previous Loach efforts. (Thanks to commenter Han for the tip.)

  • Are you experienced?

    Until I actually get to see it, I have absolutely no idea what to make of Steven Soderbergh’s “The Girlfriend Experience” — which, if you haven’t heard yet, is a breakthrough vehicle for multi-award-winning ingenue Sasha Grey. Soderbergh’s lo-fi experiments work for me approximately half the time, so I’ll just have to see which side of the fence this one lands on.

    But however the film turns out for me, there’s no denying that this is an absolutely first-rate poster, from the graphic concept to the typography to that killer tagline. Great work all round.

    [Courtesy: Vulture]

  • Maketh the man

    Mickey RourkeI don’t mind admitting that one of my most consistent pleasures of the last awards season was Mickey Rourke’s wardrobe. Seriously. In an industry where “who are you wearing” has been allowed to become a legitimate question, Rourke’s wholly individual, tongue-in-cheek and occasionally (okay, maybe it’s just me) pretty damn stylish ensembles came to symbolise his entire rebel stance within the circus. If only more stars would let their freak flag fly so proudly.

    So I was tickled by this good-humoured ribbing of the man in the Guardian’s fashion pages recently:

    While I wouldn’t dress like that myself, there’s something oddly laudable about Rourke’s one-man war against dignity, especially in the styled-to-perfection world that is Hollywood. There’s always the chance that Rourke is being styled, too — possibly by someone in the throes of a nervous breakdown — but I doubt it. I think he’s dressing to make a statement. OK, that statement seems to be, “I have crossed the boundary that separates ‘being an individual’ from ‘being a maniac’ — stand well back for your own safety.” But you can’t deny he’s getting his message across loud and clear.

  • Binoche and Kiarostami team up again

    Ahead of last year’s Venice Film Festival, I got terribly excited about the projected collaboration between Juliette Binoche and Iranian master Abbas Kiarostami — well, what arthouse devotee wouldn’t?

    As it turned out, this was either a wrongfooting or a simple miscommunication, for the film that was being talked up — a romantic drama set to be Kiarostami’s first film shot outside his home country — wasn’t the one that appeared at Venice.

    Instead, audiences were presented with “Shirin,” an experimental, non-narrative piece in which over a hundred actresses (one of whom was indeed Binoche) were depicted as audience members watching a theatre piece never shown on screen. More gallery installation than cinema, it was a work of befuddling beauty, but little more.

    Happily, however, Screen International reports that the initially discussed Binoche/Kiarostami vehicle is now going ahead. “Certified Copy,” a mainly French-language effort, will begin shooting in Tuscany in early June. As far as I can gather, it’s a love story centred on the affair between a French gallery owner and a British writer that blossoms on the latter’s Italian book tour, though details may have changed since last year.

    In any case, when you’ve got one of the world’s greatest living actresses working with one of its greatest living filmmakers, and in the Tuscan countryside to boot, it’s churlish to ask too many questions, no? I’m looking forward to whatever they come up with.

  • Why the public should never be allowed to vote for anything

    Guy Ritchie at the Empire AwardsExcept maybe the occasional president. And, okay, a reality-TV contest or two. But film awards — no. As spectacularly wrong as organizations like the Academy, and the odd critics’ groups, can get it sometimes, nobody can rival the collective movie-going public for sheer cluelessness when it comes to determining the best of the art form.

    Case in point: the Empire Awards, voted for by readers of the eponymous film magazine, which took place in London on Sunday. Of course, it’s a fluffy, meaningless ceremony — a good excuse for a party more than anything else — but their choices are, nonetheless, a worrying barometer of just how low independent and/or adult-oriented cinema lies on the radar of most cinemagoers.

    Exhibit A, and the real groaner of the night: the public’s choice for Best British Film. While the rest of us have been singing the praises of, say, “Hunger” or “In Bruges” (both nominated, rather miraculously in the case of the former), the Empire readership apparently lives in some parallel universe where the best that British cinema had to offer in 2008 was, er, “RocknRolla.”

    You’d hardly expect a film as challenging and specialized as “Hunger” to take a public award, but “In Bruges” occupies precisely the same genre territory as Guy Ritchie’s dismal last effort, with the crucial difference that it does so with wit, intelligence and a modicum of originality. It’s hardly news that the public doesn’t place much stock in such virtues, but it’s depressing all the same.

    (more…)

  • Critics sink ‘Boat’

    January Jones (right) in The Boat That RockedI mentioned last week that I had reservations about Richard Curtis’s new comedy “The Boat That Rocked,” which opens here in the UK on Friday. Every inch of the film’s marketing thus far (and there’s been a lot of it) gives me the impression of a talented team trying aggressively hard to have fun, but it all looks too calculated for my liking.

    And the tepid trade reviews the film is getting seem to suggest I had reason to be suspicious. Screen International strikes with the sharpest claws, going so far as to describe it as Curtis’s “personal Titanic.” (And they aren’t referring to the 1997 blockbuster, either.) Fionnula Halligan writes:

    There’s no sign of anyone in charge of this bloated Working Title vessel, which lurches and leaks its way through a series of flimsy setpieces before gracelessly coming to a watery grave … Problematic 134-minute running time turns what should have been a breezy comedy about radio broadcasters on a pirate ship into a draining experience and notices/word-of-mouth are unlikely to be forgiving.

    What transpires on Curtis’s Radio Rock feels historically bogus (would a DJ in 1966 really say “this will make you moist”?), if visually accurate. But what is most striking is the wasted opportunity here: surely life on the real Radio Caroline must have thrown up far more dramatic and comedic potential than Curtis is able to take on board here.

    (more…)

  • David O. Russell steps up

    David O. RussellAfter the respective five-year gaps following “Three Kings” and “I Heart Huckabees,” it’s nice to see David O. Russell with a couple of irons in the fire. (Well, nice if you’re a fan at least — which I am.)

    With his long-delayed comedy “Nailed” (which has endured various financial troubles) finally due later this year, now Variety reports that Russell has another project on the horizon, this time an adaptation:

    David O. Russell is attached to direct “The Silver Linings Playbook” for the Weinstein Co. The “Three Kings” helmer is also adapting the screenplay, which is based on Matthew Quick’s debut novel.

    Story centers on Pat Peoples, a down-on-his-luck former high school teacher who has just been released from a mental institution and placed in the care of his mother.

    I confess the novel skipped my radar, but the blurb describes it as “an enchanting first novel about love, madness and Kenny G,” so I’m guessing the whimsy quotient is suitably Russell-friendly, which fine by me.

    (more…)

  • Stay cool

    Over a month after Sean Penn defeated Mickey Rourke in what was possibly the tightest acting race in recent memory, Cinematical’s Jeffrey Anderson has come up with an interesting take on how the outcome may actually benefit Rourke, and indeed “The Wrestler.” In short, he says, losing the Oscar allows them to retain their edge:

    The Wrestler is just a couple of months old now, but it has already gained a certain type of following. It has actual fans; people love this movie rather than just admire it. Milk has become a good movie for students to watch in school, but The Wrestler is a film that they will choose to watch, in their free time. It’s a cult film now. And cult films don’t win Oscars. It automatically disqualifies them from cult status. A cult film is something that people discover on their own. If the Academy acknowledges it, then it has been plucked away and turned into something official. It has a stamp of approval, and cult films are all about not being approved.

    I tend to agree, and this encapsulates why the Oscars tend to be antithetical to “cult” status — films seeking the former aim for a majority vote, while films seeking the latter tend to build on minority appeal. You only need look back to, say, “American Beauty” to see how the Academy’s endorsement can temper a once-venerated film’s cinéaste cache, while an also-ran like “The Insider” only gains in critical stature.

    (more…)

  • Older and wiser

    Hope Davis’s recent complaint about the issue of Hollywood ageism, prompted by being offered characters well over her actual age, seems to have struck a bit of a chord this week. The Guardian’s discussion of the matter was also recently picked up on in the New York Times, while Cinematical contributed to the discussion by celebrating Julia Roberts’ willingness to acknowledge her over-40 status in “Duplicity.”

    Coincidentally enough, the issue also crops up in a recent Guardian interview with the delicious Catherine Keener. Ostensibly to publicise Michael Winterbottom’s “Genova” (a sadly rather negligible work, though Keener is stellar is always), it’s more of a reflective career profile, opening with the staggering (to me, anyway) revelation that she is 50 years old. (Seriously?!) Here, she describes the pleasures of ageing as a character actress rather than as a movie star:

    “Interesting characters are pretty rare if you really want to be the lead. That’s the usual complaint of actresses my age, and they’re not wrong. They depend on you being beautiful. Since I’m not cast for my physicality, I’m not that interested in those parts. I find that playing so many characters in so many films is a way to stay in the moment.”

    She says she feels sisterly towards other women actors her age, and would concur that Hollywood remains ageist and sexist, especially when it comes to big-budget material. Somehow, she has found a niche that avoids these traps. She despairs a bit of the new generation of women coming up: “Everyone seems so frigging young and naive. They had some survey of younger women and they asked them what they aspired to be. The most popular answer was to be the assistant to a movie star – not the movie star, but the assistant!”

    Yeah, as if Catherine Keener isn’t sexy. Anyway, she’s a really smart, engaging interviewee; read the rest here. Meanwhile, with Michelle Pfeiffer shortly to appear on our screens as Rupert Friend’s decades-older seductress in “Cheri,” something tells me this isn’t the last we’ll hear on the “older women in Hollywood” issue in the months to come.

  • ‘Mysteries of Pittsburgh’ trailer

    Am I the only one who had completely forgotten that “The Mysteries of Pittsburgh” was even coming out in two weeks’ time? Read into that what you will, but you’d expect the adaptation of a novel as successful and widely beloved as Michael (“Wonder Boys”) Chabon’s 1988 debut to be a bigger deal.

    Still, that’s what happens when you hand it to the writer-director of “Dodgeball” and cast the yet-to-ignite likes of Sienna Miller. And its reviews at last year’s Sundance fest didn’t exactly set the world alight. Neither, for me, does this trailer. File this under “wait and see.”

  • Enough already

    Right, so Michael Sheen obviously ignored my career advice to lay off the biopics for a while. That’s okay. He’s a lot more famous and successful than I am, so I guess he probably knows best.

    But seriously, a third go-round playing Tony Blair in yet another factional Peter Morgan-scripted project? If you haven’t heard already, “The Special Relationship” is a planned BBC/HBO collaboration covering the political allegiance between Blair and Bill Clinton at the tail-end of the century. From the Guardian:

    Michael Sheen is due to return as the former prime minister for the third time, alongside Helen McCrory, reprising her Cherie Blair from The Queen. Dennis Quaid is attached to play the ex-US president, reportedly beating Russell Crowe, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Alec Baldwin and Tim Robbins to the role. Julianne Moore is lined up to play Hillary Clinton. Morgan intends to sidestep casting of Monica Lewinsky by showing the former intern solely in archive footage, including video of her closed-door testimony to Congress.

    Sure, Sheen has that particular impression nailed, but what does he (or we, for that matter) stand to gain from reprising it once more? He’s a gifted actor, no doubt — but I can’t be the only one who’d like to see him expand his range a little. (In any case, wouldn’t it be interesting to see another actor’s interpretation of the role?)

    Much the same, in my opinion, goes for Peter Morgan, who is apparently set to make his directorial debut with this. I’d love to see his evident grace and wit as a dramatist put to work on something loose and fictitious — perhaps even more genre-based. Anyway, kvetching aside, I’m sure this will be a typically classy, intelligent effort. Just wake me when it’s over.

  • ‘Away We Go’ one-sheet

    Same jaunty home-made aesthetic as the trailer. And hey, who knew Jonathan Franzen was playing romantic leads these days? Oh, wait.

    Anyway, I like it, but I’m still having trouble squaring such imagery with the tag of “from director Sam Mendes.” Is this coming from a genuine place inside him, or did he think, “Hmm, I think I’ll try my hand at one of those gentle indie comedies that have done quite well lately?” Nothing wrong with that. Kudos for the change of pace, either way.

  • Embarrassment of riches

    Remember when, a few weeks ago, Freida Pinto was automatically declared Woody Allen’s new “muse” simply because she had committed to his next film?

    Well, it seemed premature then — and now that none other than Nicole Kidman has been added to a cast that already included Naomi Watts, I think it’s fair to say the focus (not to mention the pressure) is off Pinto.

    Even by Allen’s own lofty casting standards, Kidman is quite a coup. As usual, we have no other details of the project, but I would love to see Kidman let loose in a comedy for a change. With Josh Brolin, Anthony Hopkins and Antonio Banderas also in the mix, it’s certainly an attractive line-up. But then, when does one of Woody’s films not look good on paper?

    (UPDATE: Thanks to diligent commenter Billyboy, I can inform you that the film is “a dramatic comedy which is set in London (and) revolves around the romantic intrigues, sexual desires and ambitions of a group of people.” Business as usual for the man, then — not that we’d want it any other way.)

  • With the emphasis on ‘Ho’

    Here’s an, um, interesting addition to “Slumdog Millionaire’s” long list of accomplishments: how many Best Original Song winners are treated to a Pussycat Dolls remix? Words fail me.

    (Memo to Ms. Scherzinger: it’s pronounced “jye,” not “jay.”)