Big Eyes (SPOILERS*1)
Cert: 12A / 106 mins / Dir. Tim Burton
About twenty minutes into Tim Burton's Big Eyes, you have to wonder if the awkwardly accelerated, whirlwind romance between Margaret (Amy Adams) and Walter (Christoph Waltz) is a deliberate discomfiture to set the audience on an uneasy edge for the rest of the film, or just slapdash screenwriting. As the story powers through its checkpoints toward what should be a massively satisfying ending, you rather suspect it's the latter of the two.
The 1950s/60s story of acclaimed artist Margaret Keane (nee Hawkins) and her husband Walter, who for years passed off her work as his own, coercing her into producing hundreds of original pieces for millions of subsequent posters and prints, is told for the most part through Adams and Waltz's performances. And while I very much like Christoph, he's now at the point where he seems to end up just playing Christoph Waltz*2. Amy Adams fares slightly better, but neither headliner gets the opportunity to spread their wings and deliver the performance you know they're capable of, mired by the speeding-bullet screenplay and a heavy-handed script. Worse still, while Waltz gets to be the moustache-twirling villain, his scene-grabbing charisma a necessity, Adams' Margaret is under-represented to the point where her character drops through sympathetic until the viewer actually begins to resent her timidity (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is the precise opposite of the point of the film).
The tale of the swindle is told in a nuts-and-bolts way, but a story about Art (capital A) needs a far more delicate touch, and Big Eyes could have been more sincere and surreal, candid and confessional. That it's not lies more at the feet of writers Scott Alexander and Larry Karazewski than director Tim Burton, I think. Speaking of Burton, other than the kitsch 1960s setting and the subject matter of Margaret's paintings, there's little of the Kookiness™ you'd expect from him, here. In fact, the brief segments where Margaret has semi-hallucinogenic visions of real-world people with huge eyes would have done the film huge favours by being expanded, to help the audience experience the paranoia and guilt as she does. Alas, they only serve as an all-too-brief reminder of who's directing.
Other hiccups come in the form of a narration from Danny Huston's San Francisco gossip columnist, Dick Nolan, which is so sporadic that when it re-appears every half hour or so, it feels unnecessary and even intrusive. The best eyebrow-raiser is reserved for Madeleine Arthur as Margaret's 16yr old daughter in the final act of the film, when she announces "I'm not a little girl any more!", underlining the fact that she looks nothing like Delaney Raye, who was playing her younger character half an hour earlier.
The most crucial part of Big Eyes, the courtroom showdown where Margaret challenges Walter legally over the creation of the artworks, seems to spend more energy on Mr Keane's comical attempts at legal self-representation than it does on the argument-settler of actually paining a picture. When the final victory arrives for Margaret, rather than bringing euphoria, it feels expected and oddly understated. Even the pre-credits slides, showing photographs and updates of the actual Keanes, don't carry as much weight or closure as they should.
Despite all my moaning (and how), Big Eyes is still in itself a good film, but I think the awe-inspiring story and Bruno Delbonnel's gorgeous cinematography are far more interesting than the screenplay.
I was ready to be swept away by Margaret Keane's story, but instead I was only carried along.
The trailer suggests slightly more than the film has to deliver.
Kinda, but not as much as I'd hoped I would.
From a story-telling perspective, absolutely. From an emotional one, not so much.
Cinema if you're a Burton/Adams/Waltz fan; for everyone else, this is a Sunday night DVD.
Nope.
At some point.
There isn't.
When Margaret is nervously going through her portfolio at the furniture company, was I the only one thinking of Old Gregg?
"I call this one Baileys… I call this one Baileys…"
*1 Yes, I'm very aware that this is a 'true story' from the early 1960s and as such is pretty hard to call 'spoilers' on, but much of my review centres around the actual events of the plot. Look, don't complain because I've given the end away, alright?
*2 And not to sound too catty about it, but I can see why that would appeal to serial Depp-enabler, Tim Burton.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Saving Mr. Banks (second-pass)
Cert: PG / 125 mins / Dir. John Lee Hancock
(You can read my first review of Saving Mr Bankshere)
Watching the film for a second time is a fascinating experience. For one thing, you get to focus more fully on Emma Thompson's magnificent performance as P.L.Travers, being able to apply the full scope of the film's 1906 timeline to Thompson's 1961-era performance, right from the beginning. There are certain nuances which, although by no means hidden when viewed for the first time, carry more weight when you already know of all the baggage she insists on carrying. It also makes the unravelling of her childhood a more staid affair. Although there's initially a sweetness to the scenes between Colin Farrell and Annie Buckley, we know that all of the gags are in the 1961 Los Angeles thread, and as an audience we're as powerless to stop the downfall of Farrell's Travers Goff as the attendees of the Town Fair, looking on in horror as he slurs a speech then topples off the stage.
But for all the familiarity of the plot, the execution is just as powerful upon re-watching, and the final half hour is every bit as uplifting. Although I think you won't lose too much by watching this on DVD, there is a remarkable parallel in being in a cinema audience and watching Travers, Disney and the L.A. Premiere audience as they view the film for the first time. Clips of the actual Mary Poppins film are used sparingly*1, so as not to distract from the reactions it's evoking in the Grauman Chinese Theatre.
After last weekend's Doctor Who and Kennedy events, it occurred to me that 2013 is an odd time to release this, given that next year is the 50th anniversary of Mary Poppins. Then after about a second's thought, it also occurred to me that by the time of that anniversary, both of these (Mary Poppins remastered, no doubt) will be in retail-friendly DVD and BluRay formats. Gotta love Disney.
All I can tell you is that you should see Saving Mr Banks as soon as you can, and that if you aren't moved by it on some level then you're probably not human.
Yes it is.
Yes I did.
Yes it does.
It's cold, dark and wet out there, but this film is worth leaving the house for, yes.
I will, yes.
Probably not until it hits DVD now, but yes.
There isn't.
You've got to feel sorry for Paul Giamatti, haven't you? In 1961 he's a limo-driver for a studio, and two years later he's worked his way up to making his own movies! Then, on his first day's filming, something goes a bit wrong on set and the Secret Service are commandeering his footage. No wonder he gave up, after that.
It's a shit business.
*1 In a sort of 'well, of course we've got the rights, but that's not what you're here for' type of way.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
It's not every day that I go and see a film starring two leads I don't particularly care for, the subject of which being another film which I don't particularly care for. Then again, it's not every day that I love it, either. Maybe it's just the right movie at the right time, but I found the whole thing entirely charming, powered by a well-earned tweeness that's entirely in keeping with the surrounding narrative.
Emma Thompson is outstanding as Mary Poppins author P.L. Travers. You never forget that it's Thompson you're watching, if you get my drift, but she inhabits the role so well that you can't help but feel for the emotionally crippled writer in not wanting to let go of the one aspect of her life that brings her any joy and control. Similarly, Tom Hanks supports her ably with his Walt Disney impersonation*1, and manages to bring some warmth to the character who only wants permission to play in the same sandbox. Colin Farrell puts in a restrained turn as Travers' troubled father Robert, but seems to play the character in a way which suggests it was initially written for Johnny Depp, somehow. Other highpoints in the cast are BJ Novak, Jason Schwartzman, Bradley Whitford and Melanie Paxson, starring as the long-suffering Disney staff who gently shepherd Travers through the screenwriting process.
The story takes place in 1906 in Australia*2, and 1961 in Los Angeles, focusing on two key periods in Travers' life. We cut between them throughout the film, and even though the outcome of each thread is fairly clear*3 the events of the past are revealed in a way which builds the emotional resonance in the 'present' of 1961. The revealed sadness of Travers' early life comes not from any twist in the story, but the crushing inevitability of it all. In terms of the depicted drama, I don't know how true to life this telling of the story is, but it's told earnestly enough to work in this context. There's also a great audio sequence played under the end credits which at least lends credence to one scene in the film. On an emotional level it's hugely manipulative, but then again, it's a Disney film about a Disney film, so I expect nothing less; they've got a track record of doing that well, and it's upheld here.
It won't be to everyone's tastes, and it hasn't made me see Mary Poppins in a new light*4, but Saving Mr. Banks achieves its goals perfectly.
Very sweet, very funny, eminently watchable. Enjoy.
You won't lose anything by watching it on DVD, but the cinema's going to be more immersive.
Probably, yes.
I will.
There isn't.
Despite the very touching visual tributes to David Tomlinson, I can't have been the only one thinking that the sketches of Mr Banks on the storyboards (three years before the film was released) wouldn't look that much like the actor who hadn't yet been cast, can I?
*1 Hey, I never met the guy, I imagine he's doing it very well.
*2 They did say (and show) where in Australia the family move to, but I didn't catch it. Sorry Australians, I am terrible, I know. I'm not familiar with your geography, I'm afraid.
*4SPOILER! Travers decides to grant Disney the rights to make the Mary Poppins film, in the end.
*4 Yeah, I'll be honest, I tried to watch it again last weekend in prep for Saving Mr Banks, but only made it an hour and a half through. That film is slow. The main character doesn't appear until 25 minutes in. It's mad.
*5 Despite Thompson's character being constantly referred to as Pam and Pamela, I like to think that her nom de plume was Pave Lee Travers. Yes, I know I'm not normal. Especially as this footnote #5 has no corresponding asterisk in the above review.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
