Get On Up

Not the biggest fan of James Brown’s music (with some notable exceptions) I approached the biopic ‘Get On Up’ with something less than enthusiasm. The prospect of two and a half hours in the company of the self-professed “Godfather of Soul” - played here by the superb Chadwick Bose – was a bit daunting. I have to say, however, that I actually found this a gripping and eminently watchable film from which I learned a lot about the man and his music and why he was to become one of the most influential musical figures of the 20th century.

Growing up in a Georgia backwater, Brown’s early life was impoverished. Son of an abusive father and negligent mother, the effectively parentless Brown was brought up by a brothel-owning aunt and learned early to look out for himself.  This independence, coupled with a talent for alienating people who didn’t conform to his expectations, is a theme that runs through the film. Predictably Brown ends up on the wrong side of the tracks and in regular trouble with the law. Released on parole after one of several jail terms, Brown is taken in by the family of Bobby Byrd, the man who was to become a fellow bandsman and, as it turns out,  his ‘trusty lieutenant’ for many years. By this time his musical talent, honed in the gospel music of the local church, was becoming evident. As his career reaches ever greater heights, Brown becomes even more uncompromising. The film pulls no punches in portraying him as a violent, manipulative man, bullying both his fellow bandsmen and the women in his life. An emotionally disconnected perfectionist, this was a man who clearly did not like being upstaged.

Though generally well received, some critics of this film have been disturbed by the omission of certain aspects of Brown’s life: his drug use (merely incidental in the film) and the issue of race, which barely raises its head. Anyone who knows a bit about 1960s America will be aware of the major part Brown played in raising black consciousness and this is underplayed here. As if in lip service, Brown is shown quelling a race riot which threatens to explode following the assassination of Martin Luther King, but the scene, in my opinion, is not handled particularly well. There has also been much made of the film’s apparently ‘scattershot chronology’. In fact, I had no difficulty navigating my way through the various snapshot scenes and (uncharacteristically!) was never confused by what was happening and when. Though there were many flashbacks the narrative was clearly delineated with key points in Brown’s career punctuating the film’s action. A small number of critics were completely underwhelmed by the movie. The Guardian’s Tom Shone calls it a “dreary rags to riches plod”. Hrmm.. I’m not sure dreary is a word I would use.

So, what were Get On Up’s good points? For me James Brown’s music (rather than the tawdry facts of his life story) was the driving force throughout. The concert scenes were very authentic and the dancing superb – Boseman apparently spent between 5 and 8 hours a day for 6 weeks solid practising the moves. Much of the acting was superb - I particularly liked the long-suffering character of Bobby, played brilliantly by Nelsan Ellis, while Boseman perfectly captures the singer’s voice (an at times almost impossible to decipher Southern twang!), mannerisms and even his walk. There are also several genuinely touching scenes: Brown’s backstage meeting with his mother (and her pathetic admission of her inadequacies) towards the end of the film and the scene in which Brown sings ‘I Need You’ a capella to his friend Bobby – surely proof of a chink of humanity?

In all, I would say the film did its job, Chadwick Bose was excellent - though for me still not up there with Jamie Foxx’s portrayal of Ray Charles - and for the light it shines on Brown and what motivated him, this was a creditable portrayal of a volatile but, some would say, brilliant musician.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vptGSENcXeI&feature=player_embedded

 

What we did on our holiday

The film’s plot centres around a family trip to the Scottish Highlands to celebrate what is likely (and indeed turns out) to be the last birthday of the main character Gordy, an eccentric free spirit beautifully played by – who else? – Billy Connolly. The basic conceit is that the children are sworn to secrecy about the fact that their parents – Doug (David Tennant) and Abi (Rosamund Pike) are going through divorce proceedings following the former’s infidelity, but want to keep all this quiet to avoid upsetting the family apple cart. Inevitably however, it’s not long before the ‘secret’ is out and tensions start to rise. As the weekend progresses and the hosts begin to work themselves into a frenzy over every last detail of the planned party, Gordy and his three younger grandchildren head off to the beach (cue wistful highland music!) for a day of carefree fun and adventure. Liberated from the oppressive atmosphere of their rowing parents the kids, egged on by their granddad, get the chance to really let their hair down. There are lovely scenes here, including the sight of the oh-so-sensible Lottie discovering the joy of hurtling along the beach at the wheel of the Land Rover as Gordy tells her to “live more, think less”, a mantra which strikes a keynote for the whole film. For me, these scenes are where the film really works. The relationship between Gordy and his grandchildren is very touching. He clearly respects their natural honesty and he in turn confides his hopes and fears in a way that parents rarely feel able to do with their offspring. But then suddenly the happy family tableau develops into something altogether more sombre and we move away from ‘Outnumbered’ territory. After one hilarious ‘false start’, Gordy decides to shuffle his mortal coil just as the kids have finished burying him in the sand. The children decide they want to give their beloved granddad the funeral they think he would have liked – a Viking warrior’s funeral (as Lottie points out with unerring logic: “cos he had to fight cancer, right?”). They decide they can dispense with the help of the grown-ups – who in their eyes are completely useless anyway – and set about with great ingenuity constructing a vast funeral pyre, eventually launching Gordy’s burning body so that it can “float to Valhalla”. The second half of the film deals with the repercussions of this event and shows the various adult members of the family being forced to put aside their differences and work together to avoid a complete breakdown of everything they hold dear… More.

The film was written and directed by Andy Hamilton and Guy Jenkin, creators of so much golden comedy and credited with perfecting the art of ‘out of the mouths of babes’ humour with their immaculate BBC comedy series ‘Outnumbered’. But where that series tapped into the humour that derives from the minutiae of everyday family life, this film explores broader issues such as dishonesty, betrayal, death. Yes, it’s funny but also tinged with sadness. Sadness that two people who once loved each other can cause themselves and their children so much anguish, sadness that there is no magic wand to cure nice people of bad illnesses, sadness that people do and say horrible things to the ones they love most. There is no glib ending where the parents get back together (“for the sake of the kids”), but the final scene is redemptive. The various family members ‘wise up’ to their failings, Doug and Abi undergo a rapprochement, the best is made of complex situations. In short, people learn an often painfully learned truth: that sometimes you just have to put differences aside when there are more important things at stake.

The casting is excellent: Tennant is perfect as Doug, Rosamund Pike does well as the hurt, betrayed wife and Ben Miller does what he does best – the cold, repressed, nerdy character of Uncle Gavin was just made for him! Then there is the delightfully nutty Auntie Margaret (played by the always excellent Amelia Bullmore) and Celia Imrie, whose portrayal of lemon-sucking officialdom is always a hoot, makes a wonderful child protection officer. And though a small part, we mustn’t forget to mention poor, shy Kenneth – cowed by his high-achieving father but man enough (when love beckons) to grasp the chance to ‘make sweet music’ when a winsome fellow violinist comes his way at the wake! And the children? Well, they steal the show completely. Lottie, the ‘student’ (quite literally) of adult life, wise little Mickey, and the youngest, Jess (a mini-version of Outnumbered’s Karen), are sweet without being cloying. Their refreshing naturalness is endearing and they frequently upstage the adults throughout this film!

I really enjoyed this film. It had lots of great dialogue, plenty of laughs and was often thought-provoking. If you are still not sure if you fancy it, take a look at the trailer:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2770280/Little-terrors-big-laughs-What-We-Did-On-Our-Holiday-Outnumbered-movie-writes-BRIAN-VINER.html#v-3710703117001

 

 

Mr Morgan’s Last Love

Billed as a “bittersweet tale”, the film tells of lonely American widower Matthew Morgan (played by Michael Caine) who learns to love life again after a chance encounter with a beautiful young woman called Pauline (played by Clémence Poésy) This is not new territory, the ‘old man falls in love with young girl and makes one last grab for love before shuffling off his mortal coil’ schtick has been done many times before. But this is about more than just a simple re-kindling of romantic feeling.

The opening scene introduces us to Morgan, a former philosophy professor, who is leading a humdrum existence after the death 3 years ago of his much-loved spouse, Joan. He is depicted as a doddery, bearded curmudgeon, which brings us to the first mystery of the piece. Why exactly does the winsome Pauline, whom he meets by chance on the bus one day, immediately find him so beguiling?! Whatever the reason, they immediately strike up a rapport, bonding over Caine’s execrable attempts at French (not nearly as awful as Caine’s American accent, as many have pointed out!).  This, of course, begs a second question: if Morgan loves France so much, how come he hasn’t bothered to learn even a few words of the lingo?! Pauline’s father has died many years before and it soon becomes clear that she’s looking for someone to take his place, and the opportunity to feel part of a family. In fact, it is her gradual realisation that ‘family’ is not always what it’s cracked up to be that informs the second half of the film. What’s in the relationship for Caine? Well, clearly not sex (phew!). Pauline, it seems, simply reminds Caine of his wife. So far, so good.  But then Morgan attempts suicide (one of many such attempts, I think). At this point the dynamic of the film changes as we learn more about Caine’s relationship with his children. Pauline now finds herself confused by the prickly relationship between Caine and his family. She seems to have a rather idealised idea of what ‘family’ means and finds it hard to understand the dysfunctionality of this particular group of individuals. At this point, Morgan’s son Miles turns up, dragging a bagful of issues along behind him (his wife left him 5 weeks before and is pregnant by her new man) and is unhappy about his dad’s new friend, the “French bimbo”, as he calls her. He instantly assumes (well, you would, wouldn’t you?), that Pauline is just out to take advantage of a vulnerable old man. He and Caine’s blousy daughter (played beautifully by Gillian Anderson) want him to sell the family home and come back to the US. Matthew wants to stay. Predictably, before much more time elapses, Pauline and Miles hit it off. Caine finds out and there follows a tense scene in which the two men exchange home truths, Miles taking what appears to be a long-overdue opportunity to point out Caine’s failings as a father. In the final scene, Matthew Morgan is now dead (having achieved the closure he wanted), Pauline and Miles look set to make a go of it and (rather neatly) Pauline has been left the house in St Malo.

So, did I enjoy the film? Yes and no. I liked the first half and the gradually unfolding relationship between the two principle characters. The film also has some gently humorous touches – the mini-exchange at the stamp-collecting club is quite funny, Caine’s efforts in Pauline’s cha-cha class inevitable raise a smile, and the scene at the snack van (early in the film), in which Caine is mercilessly mocked for his lack of language skills, is a delight. There are also tender moments, such as the delicate handling of bereavement. Pauline helping Caine to sort through his dead wife’s clothes is a very touching scene.

However, I liked the second half much less. I felt the script lacked focus as it went along, as one critic noted, it “wasn’t sure which story to tell”. Just when the film hints at the possibility of a May-December romance, it shies away and focuses instead on Morgan’s estranged family and the issue of dealing with the failings and regrets of the past. I felt that the overall pace was a bit slow and the general tone at times stilted. Despite some genuinely touching scenes, it was also a bit cloying in places, I wouldn’t perhaps go as far as the Telegraph’s Robbie Collin’s assessment (“mawkish fluff”), but I left the cinema feeling distinctly underwhelmed.

Watch a trailer here: http://www.flicks.co.nz/trailer/mr-morgans-last-love/8288/

 

 

 

Fading Gigolo    

“Woody Allen at his best” exclaimed the Daily Telegraph “a surprisingly likeable film”. On the strength of this recommendation, I headed off to see ‘Fading Gigolo’ yesterday, some months after its release.

The gigolo of the title, played by John Turturro (who also directed the film), is a florist called Fioravante. His friend, Murray Schwartz (Allen), a failed bookshop owner, hatches a plan to set his pal up as a gigolo, with him acting as pimp. The exchanges between the two as they haggle over who gets what out of the deal were among the funnier moments of the film and there were a few other nice, comic touches, including the kind of one-liners for which Woody Allen is justly famous. I also liked the location (multi-ethnic Brooklyn) and I thought the scenes between Fioravante and Avigal were very tenderly done, a cool jazz soundtrack adding to the sweet atmosphere. I thought Sharon Stone and Sofia Vergara played their parts hilariously well – the contrast between these pampered, bejewelled, lip-glossed women who see sex as a fun way to relax and the plain, black-clad Jewish widow, Avigal, played by Vanessa Paradis (am I the only one to be inordinately preoccupied with the gap in her teeth?!), whose experience of sex we may presume was rather different, was wonderfully farcical.

To cut an already insubstantial story short, Fioravante soon decides being a gigolo is not for him. This was the point at which I thought - naïve as I am - that I might get a nice, cosy ending. Call me a hopeless romantic, but I thought Turturro was ‘releasing the inner Avigal’ so that the two of them could have some sort of happy life together. I wasn’t expecting her to go off with someone else – in this case the local neighbourhood watch officer played by Liev Schreiber, who had long held a candle for her. Hrrumph!

Not only was I disappointed by the weak storyline of this film, but also by what was left unexplained. (Who, for example, was the African American woman in the kitchen? Who did those delightfully winsome children belong to? What was their relationship to Schwartz?) I also have to be honest and say I also left this film feeling slightly grubby. It had a definite voyeuristic feel to it, e.g. the scene where Turturro opens the door to reveal Stone and Vergara canoodling on the bed as they await the arrival of their ‘stud’ – surely the stuff of every man’s fantasy.  A “sweet-natured and gentle film”, as one critic described it, it was not. At times, it was just plain crude and smacked of self-indulgence. For a film apparently aimed at an older audience (film-makers are still trying to ride the wave of the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel’s success), this was all wrong – the predominantly elderly group at my local film club’s afternoon matinee were not at all impressed. They felt it was mucky and (for a film billed as a comedy) not particularly funny. I’m with them!

 

Hi all,
This occasional blog is just a place for me to sing the praises of/let off steam about films I have seen lately. Feel free to add your twopence worth!