If nothing else, The Prom is a testament to the irresistible power of a great schmaltzy Broadway finale. For even though the movie loses its way for most of the second act, when the cast finally gathers as a group to belt out their big cathartic final number, the confetti flying and everyone getting their happy ending and a few bars to contribute to the whole, I teared up, tapped my toes, and felt pretty good about the whole thing. Based on Bob Martin and Chad Beguelin’s chipper stage musical of recent vintage, the movie has been directed by Ryan Murphy, whose usual gonzo go-for-broke faux-camp artificial wildness (the reason his TV work’s promising potential is usually sooner (Glee) or later (American Horror Story) driven off a cliff) is tamped down by the fact he’s not the writer. That’s why his work on The People vs. O.J. Simpson and Pose is his finest to date; he’s a talented technician when he has someone around to keep the narrative consistent. He loves bold colors and broad performances, a camera that glides on greased tracks to push in, fly back, or spin around characters, poking at touchy subjects with a heavy handed light touch in a style that stops well short of the apoplectic opulence of a Baz Luhrmann, but cuts quick and flashy enough all the same. Here the material is his sunniest, most cheerful, most actually optimistic instead of the not-so-hidden cynicism undergirding his previous trips back to high school. It has big “It Gets Better” energy. Perhaps it is because the satire is so mild, and largely contained in the outsized presence of a quartet of Broadway has-beens and never-weres at the center. Here’s Meryl Streep and James Corden and Andrew Rannells and Nicole Kidman — an odd combination — swanning into small-town Indiana hoping to soak up some free rehabilitating social media buzz by coming to the loud defense of a lesbian student (Jo Ellen Pellman) who won’t be allowed to go to prom with her date. The sneering down-the-nose condescension of the stars is good for a laugh, as they steal focus while declaiming that this scene isn’t about them, and the movie sometimes forgets it isn’t, too.
The plot deftly balances their pomposity with chipper prom prep and the small-town dilemmas of being gay in a conservative area, albeit with some recognition that the town wouldn’t homogeneously be opposed (Keegan-Michael Key is a warm-hearted theater-loving principal in contrast to the clenched PTA president, Kerry Washington). The first hour flies along with buoyant good spirts and toe-tapping numbers—a dancy promposal roundelay past lockers and bleachers; a clandestine closeted love ballad; a giddy getting-ready song in an unrealistically bustling mall; a wide-eyed tribute to the transportive and transformative ability of a great Broadway show. And it all reaches a great, sympathetic Act I climax that’s one of those beautiful win-but-lose send-em-to-intermission buzzing numbers. Unfortunately, most of the good songs are in that first hour, and the rest is a drag of tedious character beats that forces one to realize the characters are thin stock types, and the balance of Broadway divas to small-town teens goes a little awry. What are we to make of mean popular kids changing their homophobic ways just because an actor sings jokes about the Bible at them in a food court? It’s a cute number, but elides complications, and builds up the movie’s gleaming theatrical falseness. Still, we’re on our way to a great finale, and the cast is so high-energy, hoofing it well and selling corny theater punchlines. And the heart of the matter remains such a lovely open-faced introductory star turn from a young actress playing a likable girl whose struggles with being out and ignored in her cramped Indiana town resonates through the second act doldrums. I left humming the good songs and remembering the good times. Like a troupe of theater kids, it means well and has a good time, even if it's annoying sometimes.
Showing posts with label James Corden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James Corden. Show all posts
Sunday, December 13, 2020
Saturday, December 21, 2019
Cats & Dogs: CATS and TOGO
Cats is questionable on every level you can imagine: narrative, musical, aesthetic, anatomical. Only a movie so convinced of its tony, glossy, respectable, good-taste nature could fail on all counts so completely. It’s some kind of amazing. Those who set out to make a midnight movie inexplicable on purpose will be jealous, standing in awe for a true blue unintended wild pitch, a cracked cult classic in the making. I’m almost glad it exists for no reason but that there’s nothing else like it. It’s boring and fascinating, confusing and striking in equal measure. If it was an obscurity dug up decades hence — think bonkers musical movies past like The Apple and so forth — we might be better prepared to take its sheer unlikely collection of bad decisions as quaint eccentricity rather than an assault on our senses. It’s both, of course.
Built from one of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s most dubious musicals to begin with, the picture matches the stage version’s patchy story and sluggish pace. It’s about a group of cats milling about on the night of their yearly ritual in which their pseudo-supernatural queen (Judi Dench, so good she’s believable) chooses one lucky cat to die and be reincarnated. While they await her decision, one cat at a time steps forward and performs a little song and dance introducing their name and some quality they posses. There’s an abandoned young cat (ballerina Francesca Hayward). There’s a cat that lays around all day (Rebel Wilson), one that eats garbage (James Corden), another that likes milk (Jason Derulo) — all normal cat behavior. Then there’s a cat that rides on a train (tap dancer Steven McRae), and one that sits in a theatre (Ian McKellen). Fair enough. Then there’s a cat that’s a magician (Laurie Davidson) and a cat that’s some sort of evil sorcerer (Idris Elba) with a slinky henchwoman (Taylor Swift). The lonely old cat (Jennifer Hudson) is the best, because she gets to sing the musical’s one good song — “Memory,” the only one anyone unfamiliar with the stage production has heard going in. That’s the full extent of the movie, a weird shapeless thing faithful to its oddball roots. And yet what elevates it — or lowers it, your milage varying — is every cinematic decision that compounds disbelief by the second. Director Tom Hooper, of The King’s Speech and the excellent musical Les Miserables, demonstrates powers of mad erratic imagination his earlier, safer prestige projects have heretofore shown little inclination toward.
He shoots it on a big unreal stage in scope from low angles, accentuating the feline perspective, and then proceeds to populate the proceedings with singing and dancing CG-human hybrid monstrosities straight from the uncanny valley. They are not the stage’s leotard and makeup creations; nor do they use digital wizardry to transpose motion-captured movie stars into the bodies of vaguely realistic cats. It’s instead a layering of digital fur over the bodies of the performers so that we have plenty of time to consider the human form ensconced in this animal texture. They never look like cats, and never like people. Instead of a digital extension of the artifice provided by stage makeup, it gives long close-ups and medium shots of expressive dancing and emotive singing an odd push and pull. How often do we actually stare at quivering lips and wrinkling noses as they fill the frame? We also get long opportunities to trace the contours of the muscles in hips and torsos as they ripple under artificial skin? The dancer’s posteriors, too, are distractingly human under long, twitching tails, in bodies both real and unreal, human and not. Their bodies are only further accentuated by the cats occasionally wearing snazzy little hats or coats, drawing attention to their otherwise completely bared fur. What a marvelously unhinged visual distraction, appealing and revolting in equal measure, depending on the movement or the camera angle. It’s an image of partially-real creatures — too human to be cat, too cat to be human — dancing in partially-real sets — occasionally extending into gleamingly fake city streets where the cats are either half the size of an average person or a fourth of the size of the average house pet. It’d be worth seeing if it wasn’t put to use for such baffling lack of effect for production numbers that rarely add up to much in a story that never coheres for characters that never develop. What an expensive boondoggle. It sure is something.
Far more conventionally satisfying animal filmmaking is Togo, a humble based-on-a-true-story programmer slipped out onto Disney+ in the shadow of splashier family fare at the multiplex this holiday season. If you recall Universal’s 1995 animated picture Balto, about a sled dog racing to deliver much-needed medicine into the wilds of 1920s Alaska, you know the gist, although this movie will tell you Togo did far more than him. Here Willem Dafoe is a stoic human face guiding his good dogs across the wilderness as the children of small town Nome sit afflicted with diphtheria, a fatal diagnosis if left untreated. He’s the sort of sensitive, stubborn man so driven, and so good at inspiring his dogs, that he’ll holler one of Shakespeare’s most famous speeches over the sound of the whirling winds and cracking ice. Flashbacks fill in the details of the lead dog’s life, as he goes from an energetic pup in need of training to an underdog with the unlikely spirit and skill to lead the team through treacherous terrain at the behest of his kind owner. It’s a dog story, a real adventure told with low-key pace, rugged faces against awesome landscapes, natural hues, and beautiful nature-photography appeal. Director/cinematographer Ericson Core has a keen eye for these details. There’s great Jack London verisimilitude to the real dogs and settings, and the progression through the details of making such a journey at such a time with these resources. We meet a variety of grizzled characters and see tenderly realized portraits of townspeople doing what they can to help. And we see the toll it can take on those who do good despite the odds, even after their deeds are done. Throughout there’s great skill and tension on display, a driving forward momentum pinned to its elemental man (and dog) versus nature tale. It has a quiet, patient sense of narrative and emotional clarity as pure and simple as the task at hand. Just goes to remind you there’s nothing like a good old fashioned story told cleanly and simply.
Built from one of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s most dubious musicals to begin with, the picture matches the stage version’s patchy story and sluggish pace. It’s about a group of cats milling about on the night of their yearly ritual in which their pseudo-supernatural queen (Judi Dench, so good she’s believable) chooses one lucky cat to die and be reincarnated. While they await her decision, one cat at a time steps forward and performs a little song and dance introducing their name and some quality they posses. There’s an abandoned young cat (ballerina Francesca Hayward). There’s a cat that lays around all day (Rebel Wilson), one that eats garbage (James Corden), another that likes milk (Jason Derulo) — all normal cat behavior. Then there’s a cat that rides on a train (tap dancer Steven McRae), and one that sits in a theatre (Ian McKellen). Fair enough. Then there’s a cat that’s a magician (Laurie Davidson) and a cat that’s some sort of evil sorcerer (Idris Elba) with a slinky henchwoman (Taylor Swift). The lonely old cat (Jennifer Hudson) is the best, because she gets to sing the musical’s one good song — “Memory,” the only one anyone unfamiliar with the stage production has heard going in. That’s the full extent of the movie, a weird shapeless thing faithful to its oddball roots. And yet what elevates it — or lowers it, your milage varying — is every cinematic decision that compounds disbelief by the second. Director Tom Hooper, of The King’s Speech and the excellent musical Les Miserables, demonstrates powers of mad erratic imagination his earlier, safer prestige projects have heretofore shown little inclination toward.
He shoots it on a big unreal stage in scope from low angles, accentuating the feline perspective, and then proceeds to populate the proceedings with singing and dancing CG-human hybrid monstrosities straight from the uncanny valley. They are not the stage’s leotard and makeup creations; nor do they use digital wizardry to transpose motion-captured movie stars into the bodies of vaguely realistic cats. It’s instead a layering of digital fur over the bodies of the performers so that we have plenty of time to consider the human form ensconced in this animal texture. They never look like cats, and never like people. Instead of a digital extension of the artifice provided by stage makeup, it gives long close-ups and medium shots of expressive dancing and emotive singing an odd push and pull. How often do we actually stare at quivering lips and wrinkling noses as they fill the frame? We also get long opportunities to trace the contours of the muscles in hips and torsos as they ripple under artificial skin? The dancer’s posteriors, too, are distractingly human under long, twitching tails, in bodies both real and unreal, human and not. Their bodies are only further accentuated by the cats occasionally wearing snazzy little hats or coats, drawing attention to their otherwise completely bared fur. What a marvelously unhinged visual distraction, appealing and revolting in equal measure, depending on the movement or the camera angle. It’s an image of partially-real creatures — too human to be cat, too cat to be human — dancing in partially-real sets — occasionally extending into gleamingly fake city streets where the cats are either half the size of an average person or a fourth of the size of the average house pet. It’d be worth seeing if it wasn’t put to use for such baffling lack of effect for production numbers that rarely add up to much in a story that never coheres for characters that never develop. What an expensive boondoggle. It sure is something.
Far more conventionally satisfying animal filmmaking is Togo, a humble based-on-a-true-story programmer slipped out onto Disney+ in the shadow of splashier family fare at the multiplex this holiday season. If you recall Universal’s 1995 animated picture Balto, about a sled dog racing to deliver much-needed medicine into the wilds of 1920s Alaska, you know the gist, although this movie will tell you Togo did far more than him. Here Willem Dafoe is a stoic human face guiding his good dogs across the wilderness as the children of small town Nome sit afflicted with diphtheria, a fatal diagnosis if left untreated. He’s the sort of sensitive, stubborn man so driven, and so good at inspiring his dogs, that he’ll holler one of Shakespeare’s most famous speeches over the sound of the whirling winds and cracking ice. Flashbacks fill in the details of the lead dog’s life, as he goes from an energetic pup in need of training to an underdog with the unlikely spirit and skill to lead the team through treacherous terrain at the behest of his kind owner. It’s a dog story, a real adventure told with low-key pace, rugged faces against awesome landscapes, natural hues, and beautiful nature-photography appeal. Director/cinematographer Ericson Core has a keen eye for these details. There’s great Jack London verisimilitude to the real dogs and settings, and the progression through the details of making such a journey at such a time with these resources. We meet a variety of grizzled characters and see tenderly realized portraits of townspeople doing what they can to help. And we see the toll it can take on those who do good despite the odds, even after their deeds are done. Throughout there’s great skill and tension on display, a driving forward momentum pinned to its elemental man (and dog) versus nature tale. It has a quiet, patient sense of narrative and emotional clarity as pure and simple as the task at hand. Just goes to remind you there’s nothing like a good old fashioned story told cleanly and simply.
Saturday, November 5, 2016
Trolling Along: TROLLS
Trolls is
DreamWorks animation’s attempt to turn the troll dolls into the Smurfs. It
cobbles together a flimsy fantasy world for these old toys – nude genderless
little goblins with big bright primary color puffs of hair – that finds them in a village in the woods. They’re happy all the time, but live with the
memory of having escaped from a race of giants called the Bergens, essentially
a city of Gargamels who look like a cross between The Boxtrolls’ villain and the Blue Meanies. (Here’s a confusion I
had. Are the Bergens giants? Or are they our size and the Trolls are just
doll-sized?) The entire story of this 90-minute feature involves a Bergen
discovering the trolls and kidnapping most of them, leading the plucky Troll
Princess Poppy (Anna Kendrick) to mount a rescue attempt. She recruits Branch
(Justin Timberlake), the only sad Troll, to help her. It’s a real
there-and-back-again, and would be over in 15 or 20 minutes flat were it not
for the padding involving: simplistic emotional appeals, obvious lessons, an
unlikely Bergen Cyrano/Cinderella-riffing
romance, scattershot inanity, a variety of oddball road movie montages, and a whole
host of jukebox covers. It’s colorful nothing.
The movie is a step back for DreamWorks, who have in the
last several years pivoted away from a preponderance of snarky pop-culture
saturated annoyances into some high-quality fantasy. From the relatively
serious adventures – the How to Train
Your Dragons – to slapstick silliness – Mr.
Peabody & Sherman, Penguins of Madagascar – and those in between – the Kung Fu Pandas – the animation studio
has been doing good work building worlds and experimenting in a variety of
tones, styles, and moods. Here, though, we’re back with an overqualified and
underutilized all-star cast (tiny voice roles for Zooey Deschanel, Christopher
Mintz-Plasse, Christine Baranski, Russell Brand, Gwen Stefani, John Cleese,
James Corden, Jeffrey Tambor, Ron Funches, Kunal Nayyar, Quvenzhané Wallis…)
who pop in as barely characterized background players in a grindingly obvious
plot. Is there any doubt the sad troll will learn to be happy again by
journeying with an irrepressible optimist and saving their joyful kind? The
trip is dusted with wacky humor, random nonsense – glittery flatulence, slangy
punchlines, awkward innuendoes – and hectic movement.
So there’s not much to it. This is the sort of short movie
that feels very long. But it’s not entirely unpleasant. Directors Mike Mitchell
and Walt Dohrn (SpongeBob SquarePants)
play around with the look of the picture in some appealing ways. The CG is used
not to create the usual vaguely plastic look of so many big studio animations,
but instead makes a look approximating yarn, felt, and scraps from a craft
store reject pile. This gives it a faux-handcrafted texture as it spins out odd
forest creatures: spindly spiders, giant mouths, floating eyes, ginormous
snakes, and a talking cloud with arms, legs, and sneakers. Did I mention it’s
all a bit of a trip? This is a kids’ movie so formulaically developed on a plot
and thematic level that the only thing the filmmakers could think to keep the
adults’ attention is randomness. It’s not inherently funny when these characters
sing pop songs or say things like “Oh snap,” or when a Julia Child-looking Bergen
chef appears to be performed in a Carol Burnett voice impersonation. But it’s
enough to make the parents in the audience chuckle from the sheer
unexpectedness. It is what it is.
Derivative and hackneyed in the extreme, it doesn’t try too
hard to build a world or develop characters. It’s simply a bright-hued cartoony
cast of toys now available at a store near you. This fits a movie more
interested in look and design than in emotional underpinnings. When we finally
learn why Branch is so sad all the time – his grandmother died because of
singing – it sounds like a joke, complete with a cutaway flashback. But it
plays out on the characters’ tearful reactions like we’re supposed to take this
sentiment seriously. The movie’s both too randomized and too routine to settle
on any one satisfying storytelling approach. It’s all about whatever erratic
nonsense it can joke around with while cobbling together the expected kids’
movie beats. At least it’s enjoyable to look at some of the time, and for all
its frazzled mania is never as grating as The
Secret Life of Pets or actively hateful as Angry Birds. You could do a lot worse for kids’ entertainment this
year, is what I’m saying. And maybe on this dark pre-election weekend, an
insubstantial movie about dance parties and positive thinking melting away
seemingly intractable disagreements is just the silly distraction we need.
Friday, December 26, 2014
Uses of Enchantment: INTO THE WOODS
After over a decade of box office success with revisionist
fairy tales of one sort (Shrek) or
another (Snow White and the Huntsman)
or another (Maleficent), I suppose it
was about time Hollywood got around to adapting Stephen Sondheim’s original
Grimm mashup, Into the Woods. That
musical, co-written with James Lapine, was first produced in 1986. It took
long enough for something so cinematic and imaginative as this series of head-on
collisions between a variety of classic tales made it to the screen. Perhaps
the delay was simply how much further the material takes its revisionist
impulses, to a place darker and more destabilizing to the very idea of fairy
tales than those others dare.
Disney, no stranger to wonderful fairy tales, but rarely willing
to overtly dig down dark, has brought the stage to the screen with director Rob
Marshall, whose Chicago put a layer
of dreamy glitz on a sordid murder musical. The resulting Into the Woods adaptation, scripted by Lapine with music
supervision by Sondheim, gets at what’s most provocative about the story, stripping
away layers of feel-good fantasy while attempting to still let some sentimental
magic in around the edges. It’s a partial equivocation to crowd pleasing in a
more conventional sense, pulling back from a few of the nastier moments, but
remains admirably committed to being a big feel-bad musical, a bunch of great
lyrics and melody with a bittersweet aftertaste.
The opening sets a collection of familiar characters –
Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), Jack who
will have the Beanstalk (Daniel Huttlestone), Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy) – off
on their recognizable stories. The first twist is placing them all in the same
world, crossing paths, each story’s simple patterns trailing ripple effects through
the others’. The second twist is a baker (James Corden) and his wife (Emily
Blunt), childless because of a witch (Meryl Streep) and her curse, heading out
into the woods to get the curse reversed. The ingredients they must collect: a
cow as white as milk, a cape as red as blood, hair yellow as corn, and a
slipper pure as gold. This quest brings them into direct conflict with the
other plotlines, further complicating simple tales.
By the midpoint, every story has reached its happy ending,
everyone happily married off or with child or rich. The only people disfigured
or blinded are wicked stepsisters. But then the real story begins, revealing
happily ever after to be short lived. Their wishes have been granted, and yet
their lives are no easier, and choices they made to get there have unintended consequences.
The easy morality of fairy tales leaves these characters unprepared for
dissatisfaction, revenge, abandonment, infidelity, and death. That’s the sour
note of real life infecting giddy childhood fantasy. And so the movie follows
suit, buzzing with clever Grimm knottiness for an hour before tipping over into
sadness and upsetting developments. Sondheim’s play is about the limits of life
lessons gleaned from these tales, and how destabilizing it can be to feel alone
in the world without easy answers to guide you.
The movie version gets there, but it’s by its very nature
flashier, cutting between storylines quickly and inelegantly, making an
occasional jumble out of its various strands. Trims to the plot, especially in
the back half, foreshorten motivations and rush the revelations. But there are
smaller miscues of editing. Early on we’re told about a prince, singular,
throwing a festival. Then a few cuts later, we meet a prince, a different one.
In the last third, two characters die in different ways, presented so obliquely
it may as well be off screen. Their fates aren’t clear until other characters
tell us later. One literally falls out of frame, later revealed to have been a
fatal plunge from a cliff, not a trip over a branch as one could reasonably
assume.
Stumbles of staging aside, there’s a fine patina of fakery
to it all. The woods never feel like a real place, just a soundstage. I didn’t
mind it much. The set has its
charms and Marshall finds real emotional engagement between his actors that
enlivens the glittering falsehoods around them. Corden and Blunt’s bakers are
especially good, with breezy repartee and excellent timing. Kendrick’s charming
as always, this time as a flustered indecisive young woman. These three are the
heart of the picture, shouldering the burden of the tonal shifts while Streep
hams it up howling and cackling in the background as the witch goads the
stories forward. Elsewhere, there’s room for small but juicy comic parts played
with aplomb by Chris Pine, Christine Baranski, Tracey Ullman, Johnny Depp, Lucy
Punch, and more. They’re welcome flavoring to this world.
Marshall steps out of his cast’s way and lets them spill
forth with Sondheim’s delectable wordplay, rhyming, punning, and clattering
with all manner of delightful alliterations that trip off the tongue and sweet
simple poetic constructions that sit pleasantly on the ear. The big musical
moments land because of the writing, and the skill with which the performers
feel it. These little moments, aching with yearning and surprise, work wonders.
But the big picture doesn’t cohere in the way it should. The story’s pacing’s
off and the staging imprecise, but the hopeful bittersweet conclusion is
affecting, even if the remaining pieces feel a tad forced to fit. Masterpieces
of one medium rarely retain that status in the leap to another. That Into the Woods is a good movie, but not
a great one, is only a minor disappointment.
Sunday, July 13, 2014
One Hit Wonder: BEGIN AGAIN
Late in Begin Again,
a songwriter talks to her rock star ex-boyfriend and boils down the
trouble with their failed relationship to a matter of production on a track off
of his debut album. She disappointedly tells him that he’s turned what she
wrote as a simple ballad into an overproduced piece of arena rock. Her song,
she says, has been “buried in the mix.” She may as well be talking about the
movie, which has at its core a small, sweet nugget of an idea and proceeds to
thoroughly bury it under treacly artifice. It’s a movie about creative
inspiration, about how the act of creating music helps its creators work
through issues in their personal lives and find friendships and purpose through
producing something beautiful to share with the world. Too bad, then, that a
movie about the magic of creativity shows so little imagination.
To make matters worse, writer-director John Carney made a
movie that did all of the above, that cut straight to the heart of the matter
and moved people with its beautiful simplicity and great music. It was 2007’s Once, a Dublin street singer Brief Encounter, a lovely little
bittersweet romantic musical. Its leads, musicians Glen Hansard and Markéta
Irglová, poured their hearts out into open performances that ache with pain and
transcendence as their musically inclined characters form meaningful
connections through song. They won a well-deserved Best Original Song Oscar for
their efforts. It’s a movie that made a virtue out of its limited resources by
creating deeply felt characters living simple lives made better by letting them
become the fuel for their artistic endeavors.
Now here’s Carney’s Begin
Again, which plays similar notes, but ends up with little worth listening
to. There’s a shyly talented young singer/songwriter (Keira Knightley) who
reluctantly performs a song in a New York dive bar at which her friend (James
Corden) is playing a gig. An alcoholic record producer (Mark Ruffalo) freshly
fired from his indie label hears her. He approaches her and demands to help her
record an album. She eventually gives in. Since his former colleague (Yasiin
Bey, the artist formerly known as Mos Def) won’t bankroll the project, the two
of them set out to recruit some session musicians willing to work for nothing
and then find authenticity by recording her songs on the street – and in an
alley, on top of a skyscraper, in the subway, and all manner of “real” New York
locales. It’s a straightforward idea. The montages of the band coming together
have a pleasant charge and the leads are charming. But the movie lets them
down.
This simple concept is loaded up with emotional baggage
straight out of the Hollywood melodrama bargain bin. Ruffalo has an ex-wife (Catherine
Keener) who he still loves, and a distant teenage daughter (Hailee Steinfeld)
who wears clingy shirts and tight short shorts because (as actually stated out loud in a movie in 2014) she needs a father
figure more present and encouraging in her life. Knightley has that rocker ex (Adam Levine of Maroon
5) and a flashback charting their relationship. We also meet several flat,
largely superfluous, side characters including a successful musician of some
sort who is played by Cee Lo Green. You’d think he’d have a song or two, but
no. He’s here for a scene and a half of exposition and that’s it. (I guess the
movie can claim it has half of the judges from NBC’s singing competition The Voice.) There’s no sense that any of
these characters have weight. They talk about their backstories and their
feelings, but they don’t wear them. The cast is made up of fine actors (and
Adam Levine). To the extent that it works at all – and it does, for a minute or
two here and there – it’s because of them, but they can’t sell such thin
material all on their own.
It’s shot with an earnest, up-tempo glossiness, and it’s
watchably amiable. But the movie is simply unconvincing. There’s a scene in
which two people listen to a song on headphones in the middle of a crowded
nightclub. How could they possibly hear it? Later, a woman reads the back of a
CD’s case while listening to the music on an iPod. Two industry professionals
call Stevie Wonder and Frank Sinatra “guilty pleasures.” The dramatic
resolution of the making-an-album plotline plays out as a credit cookie and is
a self-flattering ode to the magical hit-making power of the Internet. These
small, bungled details pile up and distract. But at least being so phony helps
throw its sappy triteness into stark relief. The more it insists on the
creative powers of its characters, the less awareness it shows. It’s a
reductive sort of movie that claims to be about inspiration while having none
of it.
At one point, a character tells Ruffalo, “this isn’t Jerry Maguire,” which only goes to
remind the audience how skilled Cameron Crowe is at blending music and drama
into something transcendent, a skill Carney had with Once but is lacking here. Still, the songs,
written by Carney and collaborators, are mostly nice and inoffensive to the ear.
The ensemble has chops (or fakes them well enough) and the songs are at worst
the kind of pleasant guitar-and-piano fare you’d hear as background noise in a
Starbucks. The least of the lyrics are overly stretching in a moody
middle-schooler sort of way. A low-light: “Yesterday I saw a lion kiss a deer /
Turn the page and maybe we’ll find a brand new ending / When we’re dancing in
our tears.” Yeezus, that’s bad. At least the melodies and arrangements go down
easy, and Knightley’s enough of a charmer to disguise those words on first
listen. In such a flimsy dramedy, the songs are never more than welcome distraction
to the grinding gears of plot mechanics. They’re just more missed opportunities
in a film that proves lightning rarely strikes twice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







