Thursday 26 July 2012

For fans of Woody Allen's lesser achievements

At some point in the 1990's, I became a fan of an obscure little film magazine out of New York called CINEASTE. Some its writing was conceited, frequently using big words that never appear in regular conversation, like verisimilitude and solipsistic, just to set itself apart from, y’know, common folk. But I enjoyed its long 20-page reviews that treated movies as art, not pop-culture products. Given their tendency to let writers ramble, I thought I’d give it a go and submit this. I was shooting way out of my league and it’s no surprise it didn't make it to print.

CELEBRITY
Written and directed by Woody Allen
With Kenneth Branagh, Judy Davis, Joe Mantegna, Leonardo DiCaprio
113 minutes, 1998, USA

Originally written November, 1998
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CELEBRITY illustrates, more than any of his other films, how Woody Allen is one of America’s most gifted filmmakers yet one of its laziest screenwriters. His latest film embodies all of the characteristics of some of his best work: dreamy black-and-white cinematography, eccentric casting, incisive dialogue, and a portrayal of the human condition at its most riotous and painful. Though what is most painful, and not at all funny, is the way Allen continues to repeat situations and gags from previous scripts and make references to his own work, to a point where it has gone beyond amusing to grating.

Kenneth Branagh and Judy Davis occupy the two principal roles (Allen does not act this time around) in what is otherwise an elaborate ensemble piece. Branagh plays a middle-aged travel writer who cruelly dumps his uptight wife of 16 years and takes up celebrity journalism, believing that a life of screwing models and partying with teenage movie stars will satiate a lifetime of unfulfilled desires. Davis, as the jilted wife, inadvertently and uncomfortably becomes enmeshed in celebrity culture herself, as her TV-producer boyfriend (Joe Mantegna) helps her break out of her shell to become a hack gossip reporter on a local newscast. Both actors clearly relished their roles and their bold performances gave the film most of its depth.

Davis in particular is a standout. It’s clear why she’s recently Allen’s actor of choice and is perhaps one of the best results of his split with Mia Farrow, who could not play such nervous characters with the sly wit Davis brings to her roles. She is a joy to watch, as she transforms from a frazzled, greying English teacher who is so uncomfortable in her own skin that she feels immense guilt for finding pleasure in life, to becoming the ditzy TV personality with an outrageous blond makeover. Some of Allen’s most acerbic lines seem written for her voice, which drips with cynicism: “I’ve become the type of person I always hated, but you know, I’m really happy.”

Assuming his mentor’s nervous stutter and jittery mannerisms, Branagh took his role in this film very literally. Basically, he does a toney Woody Allen impression, a schtick that would have looked trite coming from another American comedian, but having a charismatic, English Shakespearean actor pull off such a peculiar giddy performance is perversely exciting.
           
Branagh is himself an auteur of sorts, best known for his grand screen adaptations of Shakespeare, and director of DEAD AGAIN and PETER’S FRIENDS. His first stab at both writing and directing was 1995's A MIDWINTER’S TALE, which itself was a small, pretentious black-and-white film that garnered comparisons to Allen by the handful of people who actually saw it. Having displayed this reverence for Woody, Branagh must have found it irresistible to now play Woody in a film directed by Woody, and in black-and-white no less.

Perhaps it would have been more appealing to see Branagh invent a distinctive character. Yet you could also argue that he brings realism to a role that Allen could have only played as slapstick.

Take for instance a scene in a nightclub that draws a subtle parallel with Allen’s PLAY IT AGAIN SAM, where in both films its characters try desperately to pick up beautiful women by dancing with affected suave personalities. Allen played the scene for straight laughs in 1972 and, because of his nerdy looks, could never do it any other way. Today, Branagh does the same routine with stark authenticity. In that singular moment, he becomes someone we have all known, the narcissist whose behaviour is so pathetic and transparent that it’s both comical and sad to watch.

True to that narcissism, Branagh trades in his Volvo for an Aston Martin, an affectation that he believes will help him score with the chicks. Driving him further down the road of shame is his lack of journalistic ethics. With his notepad barely open, he’s attempting to either screw or pitch screenplays to his interview subjects. Branagh is perfect as the flawed, desperate character whose infantile behaviour eventually destroys himself and the people who love him. The final frames of the film are poetic. A chance meeting with his ex-wife shows him that she has become exactly the person he left her for; beautiful, famous, and content. As he sits silently with the look of a bitter, broken man, a fleeting image before him brings his story full circle and elegantly sums up his life and mental state. It’s a deft piece of writing that required a skilled actor.

The title is a bit of a misnomer, though, since most of Allen’s films relate, in one way or another, to the phenomenon of celebrity. The stock lead character in most of his films is commonly a writer, director, or performer of some kind. CELEBRITY itself has only little more to do with the subject than ANNIE HALL or PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO. In fact, this movie could have been called HUSBAND AND WIFE, as its story covers the same territory of Allen’s HUSBANDS AND WIVES (with one less couple and half the urgency). The themes of philandering, emotional turbulence, bad behaviour, and insecurities of being single are reworked over a new setting.

This is not a satire on celebrity status. Celebrity culture provides the backdrop, and while questions are mischievously posed about why people who do little of much use become famous, this is more of a motif than commentary. I don’t believe Allen is capable of making any significant comment on the subject and it’s just as well he didn’t try.

It’s difficult to criticize a filmmaker who has crafted one film per year for three decades with such a high degree of artistic success. The prolific output is admirable, but it must be pointed out that his films of late have suffered from writing that appears rushed and poorly constructed. CELEBRITY, like DECONSTRUCTING HARRY before it, is a good film that could have been excellent if Allen had the patience to spend time refining his script before rushing into production.

Re-hashing themes and situations from previous stories is both his trademark style and the reason he can quickly churn out scripts. He works, it seems, within an insular world of New York's cultural elite that bears little resemblance to anyone’s reality except his own. It’s quaint how you will never find one of his characters using a computer (typewriters only) and there will always be a reference to somebody’s analyst. Allen’s narrow focus has often been a forgivable and delightful quirk because he usually draws something original, sometimes profound, from his familiar stories about angst-ridden Big Apple intellectuals.

But CELEBRITY marks a new and annoying low in Allen’s penchant for self-reference. A defining example is a portion of dialogue that is re-written from one of his films of two decades ago, in a segment about a woman who is “polymorphously perverse.” It’s the first time I’ve noticed Allen blatantly plagiarize himself and I was bothered when I recognised the dialogue but couldn’t immediately place its origin. (A quick scan of the memory bank the next day and a review of the DVD confirmed the source as ANNIE HALL.) “Where have I heard this before?” is not the sort of thing anyone should be thinking while trying to enjoy a movie.

Allen draws attention to his body of work in other subtler ways. In a scene where Joe Mantegna takes Davis to a posh premiere of a foreign film, he comments about the fictitious Greek director, “He’s one of those pretentious assholes who shoots everything in black-and-white.” The joke is meant to appear as self-deprecating, although it serves the opposite. The filmmaker in question is probably someone Allen would admire in real life, and the comment is his reminder to the audience that he’s the only major American director who regularly shoots in the colours of cinema’s origins (his sixth time in 19 years). He’s an indulgent artist who compensates for his pretensions by making films about other indulgent artists.

There are other brief but distracting moments that made me question Allen’s comedic judgment, mostly awkward bits of screwball comedy that seem inappropriate for the tone of the film. For instance, a scene in which Branagh faces his worst fear – a confrontation with an esteemed book critic who hated his two novels – and faints. Fainting is a farcical device that does not happen in real life to healthy adults. It’s a writer’s cop-out. Allen could have found a more poignant way to end the scene had he paused and given it some thought. What’s more puzzling is that this is the second film in a row in which Allen has a character sigh, roll the eyes, and flop to the ground simply because they were flustered. That happened in DECONSTRUCTING HARRY, which also featured some stale jokes about lawyers and aluminum siding salesmen residing in Hell. A writer of this caliber believing that people could actually laugh at such hackneyed material is evidence that he needs to read what comes out of his typewriter before he rushes it in front of a camera.

Despite my reservations about Allen’s slipshod writing, I still enjoyed CELEBRITY a great deal. There is a strange nuance to it that’s absorbing. The glamorous settings and black-and-white cinematography (by Sven Nykvist, who has previously worked with both Allen and his idol Ingmar Bergman) captured the mood of two people immersed in a world where they are out of place and out of touch.

On its own merits, this is a relatively good film. As a fan of Woody Allen, though, it’s difficult to watch without thinking of his superior films such as MANHATTAN or HUSBANDS AND WIVES. CELEBRITY reminds us that Woody Allen is indeed a great talent, but that ultimately he has nothing new to say about the themes he’s treated more effectively in better works.

~~~~~~~

Post script, 2012: Out of the few people I know who've seen this film, I'm the only one who found it even remotely enjoyable despite its flaws. I saw it twice in the cinema, and both times the friends I was with just shook their heads. At the second screening, there was only one other couple in the audience (it wasn't a word-of-mouth sleeper hit, obviously), seated severals rows ahead of us. At the end of the film, one of them turned toward us and hollered back, "What the fuck was that?! Did you like that? I mean, seriously, what THE FUCK!"

Tuesday 24 July 2012

The movie that tried to make AIDS funny

This is a film review I wrote in 2003 for the now-defunct gay movie site Outrate.com. The editor not only cut my review in half, he took out the parts I felt were most essential to my point. So I didn't write any further pieces and eventually forgot that Outrate existed. (According to the Wayback Machine, the site vanished around 2005.) It wasn't just Outrate I forgot about, but my review. So it was a pleasant surprise to re-read this when I stumbled upon it while cleaning out some folders on my laptop. I had been thinking about starting a blog to unload some of my unpublished writing, so I figured this little discovery would be a good place to start.

JEFFREY
Directed by Christopher Ashley
Written by Paul Rudnick (based on his play)
With Steven Webber (Jeffrey), Michael T. Weiss
113 minutes, 1998, USA

Originally written April 2003
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JEFFREY wants to be a touching romantic comedy about AIDS, but it also asks, what kind of movie would Woody Allen make if he were gay and untalented? The opening shot of fireworks over Manhattan, the strangers who stop and give advice while Jeffrey ruminates on the sidewalk, the talking to the camera, the hyperventilating neurotic, the old-time jazz soundtrack; it's all lifted from ANNIE HALL and MANHATTAN, among others. Not that homage can't be done successfully, but in this case it's done with so little flair that it's only a reminder of how great Allen's films are and this one isn't.

The Woodyisms, however, are overshadowed when the film starts to develop some misguided attitudes toward HIV and AIDS. Made in 1995, JEFFREY was released at a time when, for those HIV-negative, we were adjusting to living in a state of constant anxiety and were getting somewhat perturbed with this fatal annoyance hovering over our every sexual decision. Gays weren't that visible in the mass media, and much of JEFFREY's popularity could be attributed to seeing for the first time a film convey our frustration and angst around AIDS, regardless of how poorly.

The story begins with a string of Jeffrey's fretful sexual conquests, rendered unpleasant by broken condoms, fussing over the accuracy of each other's HIV tests, and partners who are so over-protective they practically wrap their whole bodies in plastic. Having come to the conclusion that sex is no longer fun, Jeffrey's response is to give up sex completely and live a life of absistence.

This decision is not only unrealistic, it's unreasonable. Jeffrey's problem isn't HIV, but that he chooses partners who are just as neurotic as he is. Monogamy would be an option, or finding partners who are emotionally grounded as well as safe, or not having anal sex if broken condoms are a concern. A mild dose of anxiety is one of our best defenses against getting HIV, but the film would rather have us believe that this isn't a cautionary instinct, but a problem. Of course, if Jeffrey wasn't neurotic, we wouldn't have a comedy. Then again maybe a flat-out farce was never the right vehicle to explore the complex issues around how we react to AIDS.

Jeffrey finds his new life of chastity in jeopardy when he encounters Steve at the gym. With the muscles and tough, sexy looks of a fitness-magazine model or a porn star, Steve attempts to lay a fat kiss on Jeffrey on the weight bench. Now, we know that when sparks fly, they do fly fast, but no one in their right mind would risk losing their gym membership by making out with a patron in the middle of the facility (that's what the showers are for). The fact that Steve would make such a vulgar move in public less than a minute after "hello" would be enough to frighten the most experienced slut. Jeffrey does indeed run away, not because he's given the creeps, but because he panics. Turns out he thinks this douchebag is the Mr. Right he's been searching for all his life.

Just before all faith is lost in this mess, we're introduced to Patrick Stewart in his first film role after becoming universally known as Captain Picard on STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION. One of Stewart's gifts on STAR TREK was that he could make bad dialogue credible by delivering it with such earnest conviction that even the worst episodes became somewhat engaging; there was a fascination with seeing bad television done as Shakespeare. Stewart brings the same presence to Jeffrey, playing Sterling, Jeffrey's best friend and a flamboyant queen.

Sterling serves two purposes in the story. One is to re-introduce Jeffrey, by chance, to Steve. Their chemistry is affirmed by dead dialogue, such as when Steve proclaims, "If I don't touch you soon, I may explode," and Jeffrey's assertion, "You could change me, you could change the world." The world? Really?

(While I point out the film's amateurish script, it's also worth noting that the writer, Paul Rudnick, has actually written some sharp satirical pieces under the name Libby Gelman-Waxner in PREMIERE magazine, and has written several popular novels and plays.)

Steve quickly reveals that he's HIV-positive. As if Jeffrey wasn't a wreck to begin with, he's now in a tailspin. As Woody Allen once wrote (and Rudnick could never deliver such a line), "I hear 50 thousand dollars worth of psychotherapy dialing 911."

Sterling's more important purpose, though, is to act as a foil to Jeffrey's fear of HIV. His partner, Darius (a bemusing airhead and the only other satisfying performance of the film), is fighting AIDS, and together they make an example of how an HIV-negative person can have a fulfilling relationship with a positive man. Love, apparently, conquers all fears.

However, it's a mixed message. Jeffrey grills Sterling as to how he can't fear contracting HIV, having lived with an infected man for two years (you'd think this conversation would have happened much earlier in their friendship). Sterling's response is, "We have safe sex," which would be a reasonable enough reply if he hadn't followed it with, "It's the best!" as if safe sex were a product he was selling, like laundry detergent.

Later in the film Sterling proclaims, "HIV-positive men are the hottest!" What it is about the virus that makes infected men so much hotter is not explained, nor should it be. While it's commendable that a film would try to combat negative attitudes about positive men, it's a ridiculous message that gives us yet another stereotype, by forming a blanket value judgment of a group without considering them as individuals.

And the broader message seems to be that, since HIV makes you a hot guy, maybe you should go out and get it, too. I don't think Rudnick intended to say as much, but it's prescient of today's safe-sex backlash. In today's culture, Jeffrey wouldn't abstain, but would end his neurosis once and for all by snorting a line of meth, barebacking and getting infected.

JEFFREY is padded with several vignettes and fantasy segments that detour from the story. Rudnick uses these sophomoric skits to turn his film into a smorgasbord of issues, which might have been somewhat more amusing in the 1990s atmosphere of political correctness, but by today's standards look anachronistic. The film deals very superficially with gay bashing, transsexuality, sexual compulsiveness, and even nipple piercing. There is one genuinely funny scene where Jeffrey imagines what it would be like to get sex advice over the phone from his parents, but after 50 minutes of flat jokes and pointless asides, the ability to enjoy the film has been extinguished.

The film's insult is not in the stale humour, however, but when it tries to smack us over the head with its cast-iron message.

Such as the passage where Jeffrey turns to the church for spiritual guidance. Jeffrey cries out to the priest, "Why did God make the world this way? Why do I have to live in it?" Perhaps if Jeffrey were the one dying of AIDS, he'd have a right to ask that question. The fact that he's healthy and only contemplating dating an HIV-positive man, it's offensive that the film asks us to sympathise with his unjustifiable anguish.

The dramatic climax comes when Jeffrey is late for a hospital visit and misses Darius' last moments before dying. Sterling is in grief but finds Jeffrey's condolences hollow and eventually asks him to leave. "Darius thought you were the saddest person he ever knew," Sterling reveals. "He had a fatal disease yet he was a thousand times happier than you." Jeffrey has a different take. "I don't want Steve to die on me the way Darius died on you. Is this what you want for me?"

It's a powerful scene that succinctly portrays two honest reactions to AIDS. But then the script dips once more into the well of cliché and sanctimony; the ghosts of Darius and some of Jeffrey's relatives appear in the hospital corridor to deliver another pious life lesson. Jeffrey is taught that all of his opinions were wrong and Sterling's opinions were right, and he should pursue Steve after all.

There would be a touching comedy-drama here if only Rudnick had let the audience understand the characters' faults, fears, and strengths without judgment. Which brings me back to Woody Allen. If his work is to be aped, Rudnick should have taken a closer look at MANHATTAN or HUSBANDS AND WIVES to see how complete and honest Allen is with his portrayal of people who struggle to find comfort in love, and find it a journey and not some breakthrough that follows a sermon.

Having said all that, I am open to the fact that maybe I didn't fully understand this film. Consider this: Jeffrey announces that he's moving back to Wisconsin, presumably to escape the urban AIDS crisis. When he changes his mind in the closing reel, Steve contemplates taking Jeffrey as his boyfriend. But he's concerned: "You were going to run away. How do I know you won't leave me?" Jeffrey's response: "Because I'm gay and I live in this city. I am not an innocent bystander."

If that sounds as convincing to you as it did to Steve, perhaps there's a whole level of meaning to this movie that I couldn't grasp.

~~~~~~~