“Florence Foster Jenkins”– Movie Review

 

This week, I attended a New York Times Film Club screening of The New York City Premiere of the new comedy-drama, “Florence Foster Jenkins” , starring Meryl Streep and Hugh Grant. 

Synopsis

When a wealthy socialite attempts a singing career, can she succeed despite her lack of talent or will she be forced to confront the reality she fears?

Story

In 1944, the end of the second World War seemed nowhere in sight.  Florence Foster Jenkins (Streep), a well-heeled New York City socialite and known patron of the arts, wishes to support the American troops by various fundraising efforts in collaboration with her husband, St. Clair Bayfield (Grant).  As a lifelong lover of music, she gifts some money to her friend, the great conductor Arturo Toscanini, so that he and noted opera singer Lily Pons can put on a show at Carnegie Hall. Upon seeing the performance, Florence becomes inspired to sing herself; this would fulfill two of her great desires –namely, a career in the world of music and also raising money for the war effort. 

Florence and St. Clair hire  Cosme McMoon (Simon Helberg), a talented pianist, to accompany her.  After many rehearsals and vocal lessons, it becomes painfully clear to everyone except Florence that she has zero singing ability.  However, being an affluent woman who is financing everyone’s life, no one is about to tell the empress that she isn’t wearing any clothes; as a result, they all agree to allow her to live her delusion.  Hoping to provide a positive experience for his wife’s debut as a performer, St. Clair pads the audience with people whom he believes will provide a favorable response.  Hearing her, some of the true music lovers are aghast, while the rest struggle to suppress laughter. 

Rather than be discouraged by this reception, Florence is emboldened.  She records a song and sends it to a local radio station; when it gets played on the air, it becomes the most popular recording on the show, providing Florence with considerable notoriety.  The audience clamors for requests to not only play it but purchase it as well.  Gaining in popularity, Florence arranges with Carnegie Hall to stage her own performance there, where she will give away a thousand tickets to members of the military.  St. Clair and Cosme are understandably worried.  They have been dutifully shielding Florence from reality and are concerned that if she finds out the truth about her singing, she will be heartbroken.  Ultimately, they are unable to dissuade Florence from performing.  On the night of her concert, will she be rewarded with the acclaim she so desperately seeks or will she suffer the greatest humiliation of her life? 

Review

“Florence Foster Jenkins” is based on true events, bringing into the forefront the astonishing life of someone who had a brief amount of fame in the 1940’s and has long since been largely forgotten.  The movie itself is equally forgettable.  Its attempts at humor descend to a level of a second rate situation comedy in dire need of cancellation while its efforts towards the more serious veer irrevocably towards the melodramatic.  With characters drawn as broadly as the three main ones in this story, it’s asking too much of the audience to abruptly shift gears from silly to tragic. 

Not even a performance by the great Meryl Streep proves enough to elevate this movie.  While laughs abound the first time you hear Streep’s character attempt to sing – not to mention the humorous reactions by Grant and Helberg – the joke grows weary before too long.  The movie then goes to great lengths to make the audience appreciate that this is the tale of a real human being, but by then it is far too late; the perception that this person is merely a cartoon character has already been so ingrained in the mind of the viewer that convincing us to change our perspective is a Sisyphean task, to put it mildly.

While Helberg’s character truly existed in real life, the way he is portrayed in “Florence Foster Jenkins” would understandably make an audience believe that he is merely the figment of a desperate screenwriter’s imagination.  For one thing, Cosme comes across as someone who either is a grown adult with childlike naiveté or a guy who’s just plain stupid.  Exactly why he would honestly think that everyone around Florence actually took her to be a serious talent instead of just glomming off her money defies explanation.  Ultimately, it’s too bad that the filmmakers didn’t adhere to a simple rule:  If the story is too good to be true, then make it a documentary instead. 

“Hell Or High Water”– Movie Review

 

This week, I attended a screening by The New York Times Film Club of the new crime drama “Hell Or High Water”, starring Jeff Bridges, Chris Pine and Ben Foster.

Synopsis

When a pair of brothers go on a bank robbery spree, can they be brought to justice by a Texas Ranger on the verge of retirement?

Story

Weeks after their mother’s death, brothers Toby and Tanner (Pine and Foster) start robbing a bunch of banks, all of which belong to the Texas Midland chain throughout West Texas.  Although it was Toby’s idea, Tanner, who has done time for bank robbery (among other things), is the mastermind behind these crimes – assuming “mastermind” is the correct word here.   The two come across as so inept and amateurish, you’d never know one of them actually had experience at this.  In spite of themselves, they manage to take in quite a haul after several jobs – something in the neighborhood of $40,000.   

After several of these jobs, Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton (Bridges) is assigned the case along with his Native American partner Alberto (Gil Birmingham), whom he mercilessly baits with racist remarks.  Despite the fact that Hamilton is literally weeks away from retirement, he desperately wants to catch these guys before hanging up his badge – one for the road, you might say.  Doing so is not going to prove easy, however – Hamilton’s having difficulty finding a pattern, much less cooperative witnesses.  Without reliable descriptions of these two men, this investigation is going to take a while – yet with nothing but retirement facing him, Hamilton is certainly in no rush. 

Finally, Hamilton’s instinct as a lawman for several decades kicks in and he surmises that their next target will be the large Texas Midland branch in Post, Texas.  As he and Alberto head there along with a fleet of their fellow Rangers, they learn the brothers have not only already hit the Post branch, but they have turned murderers, too.  When things go sour at this busy, crowded bank, Toby and Tanner wind up taking the life of a guard and a customer.  Now, the Rangers are in hot pursuit of not only thieves but killers, as well.  After the brothers split up during their getaway, Tanner chooses to directly confront the cops; being extremely well armed, he engages them in a shootout, killing one of the Rangers.  For Hamilton, this now becomes personal.  But after neutralizing Tanner, can he capture Pine?

Review

If you tire of comic book flicks and feel you have busted enough ghosts for one summer, then perhaps it’s time for you to check out “Hell Or High Water”.  It’s a fun, gritty, wild ride while also touching on interesting themes, such as how the economy has screwed those of our society who can least afford to lose money and how some of the most predatory lenders around have been banks themselves – the ones who are supposed to be the most risk-averse and honest.  The film is bookended by some intense action and violence, but in the middle, backstory and character arc rule, giving viewers a respite from some of the shooting.

What makes “Hell Or High Water” so interesting is the artful way in which it peels away the exposition’s onion-like layers until we learn the reason why the brothers engaged in this series of felonious adventures.  Knowing the context for their crime spree perfectly sets up the magnificent ending, making it all the more satisfying.  Taking nothing away from a terrific movie such as “No Country For Old Men”, you might compare it to “Hell Or High Water” by saying it is a less dark version of “No Country”, yet it similarity deals with how a lawman from another generation sees the world around him change. 

As far as the performances are concerned, Jeff Bridges and Ben Foster truly shine here; they are given the opportunity to steal just about every scene they are in because their characters are so broadly drawn – in the hands of lesser actors, their roles would have been caricatures.  With Bridges and Foster, however, they are able to discover nuances about Hamilton and Tanner that give each greater depth.  Unfortunately, Pine suffers by comparison because his Toby is essentially Tanner’s straight man; basically, Pine plays the more boring of the two, but in the end, the more human. 

“Equity”– Movie Review

 

This week, I attended a New York Times Film Club screening of the new drama “Equity”, starring Anna Gunn. 

Synopsis

When an investment banker tries to turn her career around by launching a major technology IPO, can she succeed or will her enemies conspire to defeat her?

Story

By all accounts, Naomi (Gunn) is one of the more successful investment bankers on Wall Street.  Over time, she has built a great career and her company has won the right to underwrite some major Initial Public Offerings of many start-up companies around the country.  So why is she unhappy?  Naomi is also an ambitious person and despite her many successes, there have been some sizable disappointments along the way, too.  Recently, one company’s historic IPO was underwritten by one of Naomi’s competitors, which has resulted in her being passed-over for what she felt was a long overdue promotion. 

An opportunity for redemption becomes available when a San Francisco-based technology company is seeking their own IPO and meets with Naomi to see what kind of evaluation they can get in their opening stock price.  Soon, it becomes apparent that she will have to put in an extra effort in order to win them over; that’s where her assistant Erin (Sarah Megan Thomas) comes in.  The company’s CEO seems to have genuinely hit it off with Erin so Naomi does nothing to discourage this if it means they will win the account.  The only problem with this arrangement is Erin feels that Naomi has been intentionally holding her back in her career; now, this may be a chance for Erin to strike out on her own. 

Further complications develop when Naomi runs into Samantha (Alysia Reiner), an ex-schoolmate, who now works as a prosecutor in New York City.  When Samantha tries to re-connect, Naomi understandably believes that she’s interested in resuming their friendship; however, it soon becomes evident that Samantha has a different agenda – she’s trying to build a case against Michael (James Purefoy), Naomi’s boyfriend, whom she suspects of actively participating in various insider trading schemes.  Eventually, Naomi gets word that negative publicity about the company is being leaked by a disgruntled former employee.  Will this threaten the IPO and effectively ruin Naomi’s career or can something be done to somehow offset the misgivings investors may have?

Review

It would be a facile review to describe “Equity” as a distaff version of “Wolf Of Wall Street”, especially because the two stories are so very different although they both center on the theme of Wall Street greed run rampant.  Also, “Equity” is in no way comedic and certainly doesn’t present Wall Street work as an enviable career choice.  What it does, however, is deftly deal with two themes simultaneously; not only is there the greed issue, but also the question about women’s role in it and exactly where and how they fit in the grand scheme. 

“Equity” is replete with good performances, led by Anna Gunn, whom “Breaking Bad” fans will delight in seeing this actress get her well-deserved time in the spotlight.  In a small but equally effective role is Lee Tergesen, whom “Oz” devotees will recall from that acclaimed HBO television show; here, Tergesen plays Naomi’s boss, who appears to be her nemesis, but is actually less her opponent than some other people who are much closer to her.  They effectively make the case that when you work in such a highly competitive environment, no one is your ally, not even your sisters. 

One criticism of “Equity” is its screenplay, which is a bit muddled; the direction also contributes to the confusion in the way its story is told.  Basically, the problem is that there are so many characters with so many subplots combined with different motivations for their actions, it can at times be difficult to follow why certain characters are doing what they are doing.  This results in one of those movies whose story you can only piece together once the film is concluded – not necessarily an insurmountable problem, but by doing so, the filmmakers are risking losing the audience well before the film’s conclusion. 

“Absolutely Fabulous”– Movie Review

 

This week, I attended  New York Times Film Club screening of the new comedy, “Absolutely Fabulous”, starring Jennifer Saunders and Joanna Lumley.

Synopsis

When two women are accused of attempting to murder a top international model, can they prove their innocence or will they be forced to spend their lives as fugitives?

Story

Finally, after all these years, both Edina and Patsy (Jennifer Saunders and Joanna Lumley) find themselves at the end of their respective ropes.  They are bereft of the necessities (e.g., champagne) and their munificent benefactor refuses to support their lifestyle.  Now, both women must figure out a way to live out the rest of their lives.  Edina has lost what little business credibility she may have had previously – a publisher has unceremoniously rejected her barely intelligible autobiography and she is leaking clients in her Public Relations company. 

But it always appears darkest before the dawn – Patsy informs Edina that internationally famous model Kate Moss has fired her Public Relations firm and is now looking for someone else to represent her.  Sensing an opportunity, Edina attends a celebrity-laden party held by Patsy’s fashion magazine so she can offer her services to Moss, who is scheduled to attend.  Unfortunately, Edina inadvertently knocks Moss into The Thames; Moss is presumed dead by the media when she is not immediately found.  Once Patsy is fired for inviting her guest, both she and Edina now find themselves on the run. 

With the police in hot pursuit, Edina and Patsy escape to The French Riviera where they stumble upon an elderly woman who’s incredibly wealthy and can offer them the financial support they need to live the extravagant lifestyle they both require – unfortunately, this requires Patsy to pose as a man so that she can hastily romance and marry this geriatric Baroness.  Ultimately, Patsy relents when she realizes the alternative – but even when she succeeds in her deceit, will she be able to convince this woman to support them both or will the police find them and arrest these women for the murder of a beloved fashion icon?

Review

For the hardcore fans of the AbFab television show, the movie version might be a pleasant reminiscence.  If, however, you are relatively unfamiliar with the British TV version, you won’t entirely feel lost, but you won’t entirely feel entertained, either.  While it may be a fun experience for devotees of Edina and Patsy’s to catch up with the gals after an extended hiatus, the joy may indeed be short-lived.  For those who aren’t familiar with the show, this will likely not be a good choice as an introduction.  Many jokes just don’t go over well, if at all.

Although “Absolutely Fabulous” is only an hour and a half – arguably the perfect length for a comedy – it inexplicably seems to plod along to the end, especially in its second act.    There isn’t a sense of momentum propelling the story to its climax, which renders it somewhat anticlimactic.  It appears that when an actual joke couldn’t be conjured up, they just chose to insert a random celebrity for a quick laugh (perhaps the only true amusement in the film is identifying all of the celebrity cameos).  Just as some of the story alludes to Edina and Patsy being well past their time, perhaps “Absolutely Fabulous” is itself well past its time, too.         

Before the screening began, it appeared that the audience was replete with some of Edina and Patsy’s biggest fans.  At some point during (and especially after) the screening, it felt as though the gathering  had been disappointed; there was no applause at end of the movie, precious few audible laughs during it and a number of folks sprung to their feet and bolted the theater the moment the credits began to roll.  Perhaps the final disappointment is the movie’s conclusion, which is either a homage to Billy Wilder’s classic “Some Like It Hot” or a blatant steal.  Either way, its punchline is missing the punch from the line. 

 

“Captain Fantastic”– Movie Review

This week, I attended a New York Times Film Club screening of the new drama, “Captain Fantastic”, starring Viggo Mortensen.

Synopsis

When a family living in the woods of the Pacific Northwest is forced to integrate into mainstream society, can they successfully adapt?

Story

Ben (Mortensen) has taken his family of six children deep into the forest of the northwestern portion of The United States where they live off the land and off the grid.  Teaching them how to hunt for food and exist virtually without modern comforts, he homeschools them so that they are not poisoned by a corrupt society.  While they wind up getting an unusual – and in some ways better – education compared to most kids raised in a normal environment, their isolation from the outside world results in an absence of social skills, which can sometimes manifest itself as overt hostility towards outsiders whom they look down upon.

Eventually, tragedy strikes the family in a way that forever changes their world.  Ben’s wife – the mother of all these children – has been suffering from severe mental disorders for years, which resulted in her long-term hospitalization.  Ultimately, the family gets the news that while institutionalized, she has committed suicide.  As if that is not hard enough for Ben and his children to take, they are now confronted with the possibility of having to venture into society in order to attend a funeral which the woman’s Last Will clearly stated would be unwelcome.  Instead, however, Jack (Frank Langella), Ben’s wealthy Father-In-Law, is so angry over his daughter’s demise that he threatens Ben with arrest if he attends the funeral because he feels Ben’s unorthodox lifestyle brought this about. 

Defiantly, Ben packs his brood into a tricked-out school bus and and drives to New Mexico for the funeral.  Expectedly, he interrupts the church services by making a speech about his late wife and reading her true wishes from her Will; while Jack stops short of having him arrested, he does have Ben forcibly removed from the church.  Reunited with his grandchildren – some of whom he’s never met – Jack decides he now wants legal custody of them when one of the boys rebels and refuses to return to live with Ben.  In an attempt to rescue his son, Ben winds up putting one of his older daughters in physical jeopardy, resulting in her hospitalization.  With all these events occurring and his oldest son entertaining the prospect of going away to study at college, will Ben be forced to change his ways or will he remain stubborn?

Review

It is difficult to choose what’s most objectionable about “Captain Fantastic”.  Is it the fact that protagonist leads his family in defiling a human corpse?  Or is the unreasonably demanding suspension of disbelief in multiple plot points an insult to the intelligence of the audience?  (Specific citations might include the woman’s suicide itself, or absence of allusions to suing the hospital over this.  Lets toss in the question about how the oldest son got a passport all of a sudden, which raises questions about what he used for a birth certificate.  There are really too many more to mention) 

Basically, Ben is a crackpot who comes across as barely more mentally stable than his late wife.  The question then becomes whether the audience is supposed to root for him to become a better father or if we are to root for the children to escape his clutches.  At various points, it is unclear which.  Is the father evil or merely foolish?  Either way, he seems utterly incompetent as a parent and too much of a risk taker who frequently puts his children in great danger, deserving of having them taken away for their own safety. 

The audience is given to believe that the hirsute Ben is ready, willing and able to change by virtue of his shaving his unkempt beard and mustache near the conclusion of “Captain Fantastic”.  Given how adamant (or obnoxious) he’s been regarding his own personal philosophy, it may be difficult for audiences to buy into this attempt at a character arc.  Morphing from the Grizzly Adams version of Bernie Sanders to the dad from “Leave It To Beaver” within the span of the movie’s two hours is hard to swallow, to put it mildly.

Although Frank Langella’s Jack is intended as the role of antagonist, he is a genuine breath of fresh air in this film – not to mention an all too rare oasis of sanity.  His presence is a relief for viewers given the anxiety built by witnessing the treacherous situations in which the children have been placed.  While it may be an overstretch for him to accuse Ben of his daughter’s death, he’s justified in his efforts to protect his grandchildren by all means at his disposal.  The title “Captain Fantastic” may be seen as either ironic or sarcastic, but its protagonist is definitely far from heroic. 

 

“Eat That Question”– Movie Review

This week, I attended a Village Voice screening of the new documentary “Eat That Question:  Frank Zappa in His Own Words”.

Synopsis

Through a series of interviews and performances, Frank Zappa either talks about or demonstrates his musical background and creative process. 

Story

Frank Zappa characterized himself as an entertainer.  In some ways, that seems appropriate since he was, indeed, entertaining.  But it was also an accurate description because he was so much more than merely one thing:  he was a musician with a strong background in classical music who wound up expressing himself in the rock genre.  He was also a composer, who not only wrote and performed his own songs, but also worked on expansive orchestrations which he sometimes conducted.  Perhaps his most distinguishing characteristic was as a gadfly. 

One particular way in which Zappa was considered a nuisance was in his ongoing fights against censorship.  This battle appeared to come to a head when Zappa had to appear before The United States Senate in the late 1980’s in order to defend the lyrical content of his records.  Tipper Gore – the wife of then-Senator Al Gore – started an organization which became known as The Parents’ Music Resource Center (PMRC).  Basically, this was a self-proclaimed censorship group backed somewhat by the potentially-intimidating authoritative nature of the federal government.  The PMRC claimed the purpose of their existence was to help fellow parents in protecting children from popular music which contained “obscene” lyrics.  In his testimony, Zappa crushed them.

In the early 1990’s, Zappa was diagnosed with prostate cancer.  Given the severely limited treatment options in those days, there wasn’t very much that could be done to help him, except attempts to impede its progress.  Over time, the illness took its toll on the great man; he became weak and tired.  Despite his lifelong reputation as a workaholic, he found that he now had to work less.  One of his final projects was an ambitious orchestral arrangement he hoped to conduct, but due to the debilitating nature of his cancer, he was forced to seek out another, younger conductor.  Zappa finally succumbed to the cancer in 1993.   

Review

The word “genius” is frequently tossed around recklessly, but in the case of Frank Zappa was extremely  appropriate, if not a total understatement.  Zappa was not only a brilliant musician who composed songs that occasionally had intricate and complex melodies, but he was also a keen observer of culture and society at large, capable of making the most incisive (and often humorous) commentaries.  The documentary about his life, “Eat That Question”, however, is not nearly up to the level of his brilliance.  Although director Thorsten Schütte claims this was his passion project for the past eight years, it doesn’t seem that enough effort was made in compiling these clips given that amount of time.

For one thing, the documentary lacks structure.  “Eat That Question” is a bunch of interviews with Zappa done over the years; they are strung together, periodically broken up by performances on television or in concert.  The viewer doesn’t know where in Zappa’s life we are until the end where the final interview shows him gaunt, pale and drawn while he’s dying of prostate cancer.  It would have been informative if the date (or at least the year) and location of the various interviews and performance footage had been provided via superimposing it on the screen or by using title cards in between. 

That this information is absent suggests a certain degree of lackadaisical attitude or carelessness on the part of the filmmaker.  Clearly, there is some black and white television footage from the 1960’s and 1970’s, but exactly when or what the title of the show was or the name of the host doing the interview are pieces of information that are inexplicably omitted.  In addition, while we see Zappa playing with his band, The Mothers Of Invention, we learn nothing about who these people were or how Zappa formed the band.  Yes, this documentary literally is just Frank Zappa in his own words – but maybe a few more words here and there might have come in handy. 

“The Witness”– Movie Review

 

This weekend, I attended a screening at The Film Society Of Lincoln Center for the new documentary “The Witness”, about the infamous Kitty Genovese murder.

Synopsis

When a young woman is murdered, the media reports that 38 witnesses to the crime did nothing to help – but what happens when this all turns out to be a lie?

Story

On a cold March night in 1964, Kitty Genovese was brutally murdered on a street in the New York City borough of Queens.  Much was made of this because it was so widely reported in the news not only in New York City, but around the country, as well.  The nation was horrified to learn through media reports that despite this 28-year-old young woman’s cries for help in the street, no one was willing to help her.  According to newspaper articles, there were 38 witnesses to the crime and none of them either came to her aid or called the police. 

Some 40 years after the crime, The New York Times published an article that re-examined the crime; based on the reporter’s investigation, the conclusion was that the version of the story originally reported by The Times was factually incorrect, either accidentally or intentionally.  While the story suggested there were 38 eyewitnesses, they may have really been “earwitnesses” instead – that is to say, they only heard the crime rather than saw the crime.  Upon reading this, Bill Genovese, Kitty’s younger brother, decided to do some investigation of his own; still bothered by the crime that essentially ruined his family, Bill found it hard to believe that there were 38 people who refused his sister help. 

However, there were several matters that hampered Bill’s investigation.  For one thing, since so much time had elapsed since the killing, many of the supposed witnesses had died; also, again due to the passage of time, those who were still around and willing to speak had some trouble remembering many of the exact details of this night.  Perhaps the most daunting challenge Bill faced was his own physical limitation; having joined the Marines during the Vietnam war, he had both of his legs blown off and had been confined to a wheelchair for decades.  Despite all of these obstacles, can Bill get to the bottom of this incident?       

Review

Remarkable, painful and informative – these words are perhaps the best fitting description of “The Witness”.  What little most of us know about Kitty Genovese is only regarding the last half hour of her life when she was stabbed and lay dying in a pool of her own blood.  Through this documentary, we learn what a full and happy life she was leading right up until its premature end.  Astounding revelations include her brief marriage and lesbian relationship, not to mention the fact that she had been previously arrested for her involvement in bookmaking.  Shocking to watch is Bill’s meeting with the adult son of the man who spent his life in prison for Kitty’s murder; it turns out his father filled his head with misinformation about what happened that night. 

If there is any criticism of this documentary, it would be the way in which its ending was handled.  First, the only person who actually came out to help Kitty was a woman named Sophie, who lived in the same apartment building and was her good friend.  Bill was able to meet with Sophie, but the meeting was somewhat anticlimactic.  The other scene had to do with Bill hiring an actress to recreate Kitty’s attack where she was in the street screaming for help at 3AM.  In the context of the movie, it was a little difficult to understand exactly why Bill did this; it wasn’t until afterwards in the question and answer session (below) that he explained the people in the neighborhood had been previously informed the filmmakers were going to do this so as not to alarm residents.  He further clarified that it was done so he could personally witness what his sister must have gone through in her final moments. 

Following the screening, there was a brief question and answer session with the director and Bill.  Bill said that although the early portions of his investigation were emotionally taxing, the longer he continued, the more he was able to accept closure on his sister’s story; he felt that in some way, this documentary keeps Kitty alive, at least in his own mind.  Director James Solomon said that while most people see this as a mystery, he sees the film as something of a sibling love story; Solomon added that he was able to commiserate with Bill’s sense of loss because during the shoot, he lost his own brother to leukemia.   

“Diary Of A Chambermaid”– Movie Review

This week, I attended a New York Times Film Club screening of the new French drama “Diary Of A Chambermaid”, starring Léa Seydoux and directed by Benoît Jacquot. 

Synopsis

When a young chambermaid seeks to escape her demanding employers, will she be willing to break the law in order to do so?

Story

At the turn of the 20th century in France, Célestine (Léa Seydoux) is having a hard life working as a chambermaid for various wealthy families.  Poor but quite beautiful, she is pursued by her male bosses; both her male and female employers end up taking advantage of her, but in very different ways.  Having recently left a plum assignment in Paris under some mysterious circumstances, Célestine winds up taking a job in the provinces where she works at the mansion of a the Lanlaire family; sadly, her fortunes turn out to be no different there as Mrs. Lanlaire is nasty and Mr. Lanlaire is constantly trying to get her into bed (just as he has previously with other female servants). 

Trying to adapt as best she can, Célestine attempts to befriend Marianne, the family cook, and Joseph, their gardener and coach driver.  Although she seems to be hitting it off well with Marianne, Joseph is another matter; he is quite aloof and a bit spooky, staring menacingly at her while on the grounds or at church.  Nevertheless, Célestine does her level best to navigate through the treacherous waters between the lady and gentleman of the house, resenting them both.  All the while, she dreams of a better life somewhere else doing something else – the only question is where and doing what?

Eventually, Joseph warms up to her and makes an effort to engage Célestine.  Joseph admits to her that he wants to be with her; he has a bit of money saved and they could leave for a big city where the two could earn a tidy income – basically by Joseph serving as her pimp while she got paid to sleep with strange men.  Initially, Célestine is turned off to the idea, but after suffering with The Lanlaires, she gets fed up and decides to accept Joseph’s offer.  But when he reveals a scheme of how they’ll rob The Lanlaires before they quit, will Célestine go along with the plan or back-out in the end?

Review

“Diary Of A Chambermaid” is based on a novel of the same name by Octave Mirbeau, which was published in 1900.  Since then, it has seen three film adaptations:  the original in 1946 (directed by Jean Renoir), then in 1964 (Luis Buñuel’s version) and again now (as interpreted by Benoît Jacquot).  In that regard, you might say that the current one is a copy of a copy; as often happens when you make a copy of a copy, its clarity and quality suffers.  Such is the case with the new version of this adaptation.  The episodic nature of the storytelling combined with an ending that screeches to a halt with many questions left unanswered causes this effort to suffer immensely. 

Why does Celestine suddenly team with Joseph after having such negative impressions of him?  The film chooses to ignore this.  Narratively, the movie abruptly switches to what turn out to be flashbacks without clearly identifying them as such, ultimately confusing the viewer.  On a technical note, the film is in French with English subtitles that are in white; as a result, they can occasionally be hard to read when superimposed over light backgrounds.  Why filmmakers don’t get the hint and start subtitling in the easier to read yellow may forever remain a mystery.  Inattention to these kinds of details speak to either the arrogance, apathy or ambivalence of the international distributors – it’s unclear which, or perhaps a combination of two or more of these. 

After the screening, director Benoît Jacquot appeared for a brief question and answer session with the audience.  Through an interpreter, Jacquot said that he came to make this movie through a recommendation from a friend; although he had never previously read the Mirbeau novel, he did admit to seeing the previous two film adaptations.  He felt that the Renoir version was very different from Buñuel’s and with that in mind, he wanted to take a stab at his own view.  Another reason why Jacquot claimed he was motivated to do this motion picture was due to the fact that some of the political issues informing France from a century ago continue to resonate today.      

“Money Monster”– Movie Review

This week, I attended a New York Times Film Club screening of the new drama, “Money Monster” starring George Clooney and Julia Roberts and directed by Jodie Foster.

Synopsis

When a poor man loses his life savings in a Wall Street investment, he takes hostage the television host whom he feels gave him poor advice – but when it turns out they’ve both been swindled, can they bring the real culprit to justice?

Story

Lee Gates (Clooney) is The Money Monster – or perhaps more accurately, he’s the host of a television show called “Money Monster”.  As the controversially garish star of a show that frequently blurs the lines between information and entertainment, his success has caused his massive ego to grow out of control, resulting in considerable friction between himself and his long-time producer, Patty Fenn (Roberts), who is secretly planning her exit strategy.  On his show, Gates provides viewers with stock tips and various investment advice.  One of his telecasts included a solid buy recommendation for a financial services company called Ibis, which showed considerable growth potential. 

Kyle (Jack O'Connell), a blue collar deliveryman whose means and education are both limited, took Gates’ recommendation to heart.  With a $60,000 inheritance from his recently deceased mother, Kyle poured the entire amount into Ibis, hoping that it would provide him a secure future upon retirement.  Unfortunately for Kyle and his fellow Ibis investors, the stock took an unexpected downturn; its price dropped from $75 per share to only $8 with little sign it would reverse quickly, if ever.  When questioned about this unforeseen disaster, executives at Ibis would merely say the issue occurred due to a glitch in the software that handles its trades. 

Furious over having lost his nest egg, Kyle sneaks into Gates’ studio during a live broadcast, armed with both a handgun and explosives.  Interrupting that day’s episode of “Money Monster”, Kyle holds both the host and his show hostage until and unless he can get better answers about how such a seemingly secure company could somehow manage to lose $80 million in investors’ money.  As Patty reaches out to Ibis executives to have a representative address Kyle’s concerns and save everyone’s life, she soon learns the company’s CEO may have personally manipulated his company’s fortunes for nefarious purposes.  With that being the case, can Patty risk angering Kyle even further once he discovers the truth or can she and Gates find a way to turn the tables in such a way as to arrive at a safe outcome? 

Review

Acolytes of Vermont Senator and 2016 Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders will likely flock to see “Money Monster” because it resonates on the theme that the United States economy is a rigged system that benefits only the very rich while punishing The Average Joe.  However, whether or not they will like the movie is an entirely different matter indeed.  The trite dialog and unlikely situations in this film render pedestrian entertainment at best, only given credibility by virtue of the big names attached to the project. 

The film’s show “Money Monster” is clearly based on CNBC’s “Mad Money” with Clooney’s Gates being a considerably more glamorous version of its host Jim Cramer.  The twinkle of that glamor is soon tarnished by a rather drab script with a suspect set-up and predictable ending.  In this post-Great Recession era where movies like “Wolf Of Wall Street” and “The Big Short” are venting the anger and resentment of the hoi polloi who were victimized by greedy Wall Street financiers in the recent past, “Money Monster” will probably not be remembered as among one of the best of that ilk. 

Those expecting to see a romantic involvement between Clooney and Roberts will be severely disappointed; instead, their characters are more like collaborators and effectively business partners who speak in a shorthand only they understand – as such, “Money Monster” is more of a buddy movie for these two mega-stars and any sense of love between them is purely platonic.  There’s certainly nothing wrong with this – except for the director’s uneasy presentation of Clooney’s character as sleazy by tarring him as quite the lothario. 

“A Bigger Splash”– Movie Review

 

This week, I attended a New York Times Film Club screening of the new drama, “A Bigger Splash”, starring Tilda Swinton, Ralph Fiennes, Matthias Schoenaerts and Dakota Johnson.

Synopsis

When a rock star and her lover have their vacation ruined by her former boyfriend who unexpectedly arrives with his daughter, tensions rise between the two men – but will she be forced to pick one over the other?

Story

Following a grueling tour, rock singer Marianne Lane (Swinton) goes on vacation with her partner, documentary filmmaker Paul (Schoenaerts).  Their vacation, however, is anything but carefree:  it is being taken as per her doctor’s orders.  It seems that her excruciating schedule has taken its toll on Marianne’s voice; if she doesn’t give it a rest for a minimum of two weeks, she may never be able to sing again.  While lounging quietly on a small Italian island, they are surprised when her ex-boyfriend Harry (Fiennes) shows up along with his once-estranged daughter Penelope (Johnson). 

Crashing at Marianne’s villa, Paul is immediately uncomfortable with their presence.  At first, Marianne seems pleased to see Harry again, but his personality soon wears on her nerves, especially when she sees he has an unusual relationship with Penelope since they’ve reconciled.  While Harry tries to smooth over Paul’s hurt feelings, he’s simultaneously trying to find ways to be alone with Marianne for the purpose of stealing her away from Paul.  Meanwhile, Penelope, who’s been a little hostile towards Marianne, seems to have her sights set on seducing Paul. 

One night, when the women go to bed early, Paul and Harry confront each other about what has been unsaid all along:  Paul accuses Harry of trying to push him out of the way in order to win back Marianne and Harry accuses Paul of trying to hook up with Penelope behind his back.  Before long, it escalates into a physical contest with the men stumbling into the backyard pool; continuing their fight in the water, Paul drowns Harry.  Horrified at finding Harry dead the next morning, Marianne calls the police and their investigation begins.  With Marianne suspecting Paul of the murder, will she convince the police of his innocence or can they find sufficient evidence to charge him with the crime?

Review

Although there are a few promising ideas and potential plot twists hinted at in “A Bigger Splash”, none of them are ever fully realized.  Instead, this plodding movie feels considerably longer than its two-hours.  Its biggest problem is that the story doesn’t really start until the end of the second act; before that, there are other elements teased but they all wind up being nothing more than misdirection.  If all you want in a movie is pretty people in a beautiful setting with gorgeous scenery, “A Bigger Splash” will suit nicely.  On the other hand, if you are looking for a film with a compelling story, you’ll be forced to look elsewhere. 

It seems the filmmakers are only interested in spending the first hour and a half faking out the audience – essentially, wasting everyone’s time.  Its screenplay’s structure is in a serious imbalance.  The initial 90 minutes of this motion picture meanders as if the movie itself is on vacation – not in a particular hurry to go anywhere.  It’s not until the final act – and fairly late in that act – that we learn some astounding facts regarding certain characters.  If only these had been introduced earlier!  Impatiently, an audience will understandably ask itself at some point, “Where is this story going?”.  The answer, unfortunately, is both everywhere and nowhere at the same time. 

The only way “A Bigger Splash” will have you on the edge of your seat in a movie theater is if you are contemplating leaving.  In fact, during this screening, approximately a half dozen audience members walked out about half-way through.  They cannot and should not be shamed for this.  Instead, they should be commended for their excellent judgment and time management skills.  One can only imagine how much more interesting this motion picture would have been if its story had gotten started earlier.  As it is, “A Bigger Splash” winds up drowning itself in its own aimlessness.