Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 January 2023

Since its premiere at the Venice Film Festival last September, the buzz for The Whale has been focused on its leading man, Brendan Fraser.  He’s best known for his work in The Mummy franchise but roles in films such as Gods & Monsters, my second favourite release of 1999 behind Being John Malkovich, illustrated his dramatic versatility.  It’s been a tough decade though.  This is the first time Fraser has starred in a live-action movie which has grossed more than $10 million since the forgettable Furry Vengeance in 2010.

The same industry that collectively turned its back on Fraser has now welcomed him back with open arms.  Hollywood loves a comeback (well, every now again).  It’s reminiscent of the defibrillator applied to the career of Mickey Rourke in 2008 with his incredible, award-winning performance in The Wrestler.  It’s a film which springs to mind as both it and The Whale were directed by Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream, Black Swan).  His films tend to be divisive but it’s hard to argue with his ability to find great actors and extract greater performances.

Set entirely within a rundown apartment, The Whale is a two-hour drama centred on a morbidly obese man named Charlie (Fraser) diagnosed with congestive heart failure.  He struggles to breathe, experiences chest pains, and isn’t sleeping well.  His blood pressure is an alarming 238 over 134!  Instead of addressing his health issues, Charlie’s focus is on reconciling with his estranged teenage daughter, Ellie (Sink), who is on the verge of flunking out of high school.  The pair haven’t been close since Charlie walked out on the family when Ellie was an impressionable 8-year-old.

The structure of the film is repetitive.  Charlie interacts, to varying extents, with five key characters who visit over several days – his aforementioned daughter, his ex-wife (Morton), his caregiver (Chau), a young missionary (Simpkins), and a pizza delivery driver (Sridharan).  The conversations he shares with these folk offer partial insight into his messy past (how did he lose contact with his daughter?), his current state (why is he so fat?), and his plans for the future (why doesn’t he seek medical treatment?).

The revolving door nature of these visits (someone leaves, someone enters) give it the feeling of a play. That’s no surprise given the source material is a 2012 stage show authored by Samuel D. Hunter who then adapted it a movie.  It’s that script which is the problem here.  The worthy performances, headlined by Fraser and Chau who both earned their first Oscar nominations, mask the very limited character development.

There’s not much to this story at all when you break it down.  The missionary adds next-to-nothing, the caregiver’s complicity is barely questioned, and Charlie’s “I suddenly decided to put my daughter first” attitude is difficult to reconcile.  Having a sad, lonely, overweight protagonist might earn the sympathies of some audience members but I didn’t know enough about these people to care.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 January 2023

Actor Frances O’Connor (Mansfield Park) was a 15-year-old high school student from Western Australian when she first read Emily Brontë’s 1847 novel Wuthering Heights.  It became one of her favourite books and it spurred a greater interest in 19^th century England and the lives of the three sisters, Charlotte, Anne and Emily, who would all become acclaimed authors.

Much is known about the Brontë family… but there are also significant gaps which historians have tried to fill over the past two centuries.  In making her debut as a writer-director, O’Connor doesn’t want this film described as a “biopic”.  It’s not intending to be a thoroughly researched, blow-by-blow retelling of Emily Brontë’s upbringing and achievements.  Rather, the focus is on showing who she was as a person.

Emma Mackey (Sex Education, Death on the Nile) steps in the shoes of the title character and portrays her as a private, introverted young woman who had “hot and cold” relationships with her siblings.  There are moments when she cheekily plays with her older brother (Whitehead) and there are moments when she turns against him in a fit of brutal, hate-filled rage.  Emily’s brilliant writing has stood the test of time but this film wants to put more of her personality on the public record.  It reminds us that great artists are no different from the rest of us.  They too are complex, emotional, flawed human beings.

The biggest subplot in the film, and the one most likely to cause concern with historians since it may not have happened, is a romance between Emily and an assistant priest named William Weightman (Jackson-Cohen).  It begins as a happy, passionate relationship but it becomes problematic over time given its secretive nature.  A few cliches are used (like the Romeo & Juliet trick of important letters not being passed on) but it’s designed to show Emily as a tortured soul who transformed heartbreak into literature.

The love story is a little tiresome, but Emily is better when exploring family dynamics – from the difficulties of pleasing a demanding father, to the unspoken rivalries that develop between brothers and sisters as they mature.  O’Connor enhances the material with above-average production values.  As an example, I was lured in by a simple but beautiful scene where a silent Emily listens intently to the sound of pouring rain while attending church.

While she’s been depicted on screen before, this is the first time Emily Brontë has received her “own” film.  Fans of her Wuthering Heights should find it interesting.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 January 2023

Marking the first feature film of Indian director Shekhar Kapur (Elizabeth) in 15 years, What’s Love Got to Do with It? is a British romantic comedy centred on two close friends/neighbours looking for love via different methods.  Zoe (James) is an award-winning documentary filmmaker in search of guys through dating apps.  Kaz (Latif) is doctor who has agreed to a semi-arranged marriage to a shy Pakistani woman (Aly) from he’s only just met.

These two are surrounded by folks willing to offer opinions, whether warranted or not.  These include Kaz’s deeply conservative parents still trying to heal other rifts within the family.  There’s also Zoe’s nosy, inquisitive mum (Thompson) who offers blunt martial wisdom while unashamedly slagging her own ex-husband.  BAFTA nominated actor Asim Chaudhry (People Just Do Nothing) makes the most of his scenes as the progressive boss of a matchmaking business humorously named the “Matrimonial Advice Bureau.”

First time screenwriter Jemima Khan adds an extra layer by creating a film within the film.  Having convinced her sceptical bosses, Zoe gets approval to make a documentary about Kaz’s upcoming arranged marriage.  This provides an opportunity for characters to speak directly to the camera and open up about their thoughts.  It also serves as a vehicle for other people, unrelated to the main show, to speak of differing experiences within the subject of arranged marriages.

As is often the case with romantic comedies, it’s hard to shake a lingering sense of predictability throughout.  You know where this film is heading at all times.  There’s still a lot on offer though.  Stars Lily James (Cinderella) and Shazad Latif (Star Trek: Discovery) are a nice pairing as they engage in intense, intelligent conversations and try to change the other’s views.  Emma Thompson (Good Luck to You, Leo Grande) continues her stellar year as the well-intentioned, not-so-culturally-aware mum who unknowingly slips up with backhanded compliments.

Through its two lead characters and a few quick facts (like figures around divorce rates), What’s Love Got to Do with It? entertainingly highlights both the similarities and differences between societies when it comes to finding romance.  It reminds us there’s no “right” way.  It’s up to each individual to identify what works best for them.  I can’t fault that message.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 January 2023

It was only two months ago that James Gray added his name to the growing list of the directors making semi-autobiographical dramas about their childhood (Armageddon Time).  Now, it’s the chance for the iconic Steven Spielberg to do the same.  There’s no doubting the 76-year-old has earned the opportunity.  The two-time Academy Award winner (Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan) is described on Wikipedia as “the most commercially successful director of all time.”

Set in the late 1950s / early 1960s, the film is centred around a shy 16-year-old named Sammy Fabelman, a character based on Spielberg and played by newcomer Gabriel LaBelle.  Not everything in Sammy’s world is great.  His parents (Williams and Dano) have an odd, rocky relationship, and he’s not the best at making friends at school.  There’s one thing that provides comfort though – movies.  Since the moment his parents took him to a cinema for the first time, Sammy has loved the craft.  He spends much of his pocket money buying film for his 8mm camera which he uses to create everything from intimate home movies to action-packed shorts.

The Fabelmans is clearly connecting with audiences given it won the lucrative People’s Choice Award at the 2022 Toronto Film Festival.  The last ten winners of that prize have gone on to earn Oscar nominations for best picture.  I’m in the minority by being slightly disappointed.  The fragmented, weird, skit-like nature to some scenes (e.g. chasing a tornado, buying a monkey) disrupt the emotional build up.

The supporting characters are largely one-note and underpowered.  The mum’s scatterbrained nature is tiring, the dad is a bore, and the Judd Hirsch heavy-handed “motivational” speech is shoved down our throats.  Also, what was up with the cliched high school bullies in the final act?  It’s as if the film wants to break away from the textbook everything-is-either-black-or-white formula but doesn’t have the guts to follow through.

Offsetting the questionable performances is 20-year-old Canadian Gabriel LaBelle who is brilliant in the lead role.  While the supporting players lack depth, LaBelle creates someone you will care about.  He provides the film’s strong core and that was enough to keep me engaged for the film’s lengthy 151-minute running time.  Sammy is an interesting, good-natured, nerdish kid who, through dogged determination, wins the respect of both family and friends.  Hard not to smile when thinking about that.

In one of the trailers for The Fabelmans, Steven Spielberg describes it as being different from all his other movies as it’s about direct memories as opposed to indirect metaphors.  The project may have meant a lot to him… but it didn’t mean as much to me.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 January 2023

I’ve had three months to stew over Tár given the lengthy lag between its local premiere at the Brisbane Film Festival and now its broader, unusually late release across Australia.  That’s a good thing because it’s the kind of movie where the more you think about, the more you appreciate it.  It’s been 16 years since Oscar-nominated director Todd Field made a movie (In the Bedroom, Little Children) and the wait has been worth it.  This is a riveting character study that will take a long time to unwrap depending on which piece of tight sticky-tape you attack first.

The movie is centred on a fictious, EGOT-winning composer-conductor named Lydia Tár (Blanchett).  From the way she is adored and respected by audiences in the early scenes, you get a clear sense she’s the Tiger Woods of music composition.  There’s very little left to achieve professionally but her latest project is to conduct a live, 70-minute performance of Gustav Mahler’s 5^th Symphony – the only one of the famed composer’s symphonies she has not yet tackled.

One theme Tár delves into is the connection, and sometimes disconnection, between the way celebrities are perceived professionally as opposed to privately.  There are folks behind the scenes who don’t like Lydia Tár because of her arrogant, selfish nature and her disrespect of hard-working staff.  At what point does that start to tarnish her image and legacy?  Can she get away with more given her talent?  It’s akin to passionate fans turning a blind eye to a gifted footballer’s “off-field discretions” purely because he is so important to a team’s performance.

Another question to ponder is whether Lydia Tár is the villain of this story?  It’s hard to appease everyone in life and while yes, she is harsh when speaking with her orchestra and support staff, is “tough love” something that must be dished out to be the world’s best?  Where’s the line between merely having high standards, and being downright abusive?  When you’re on top of your profession and everyone wants a piece of your time, is making enemies inevitable?  Several critics/viewers have made comparisons with the 2014 Oscar-winning drama Whiplash which explores the same subject but from the perspective of the student as opposed to the teacher. 

Australian Cate Blanchett has seven Academy Award nominations to her name (she won for The Aviator and Blue Jasmine) and she’s about to be anointed again for her unforgettable performance as Lydia Tár.  Just as she did in Blue Jasmine, Blanchett has created a multi-faceted protagonist who could be judged in any number of ways.  A focus will be towards the effect she has on others, but I’m also still pondering how self-aware she is of her own strengths and weaknesses.  Todd Field has been cryptic in interviews and wants audiences to form their own answers to the questions posed.

With one of the best final scenes you could ever imagine, Tár is a stellar piece of cinema.