Skip to main content

Remember Frank, your next job.


Robot & Frank
(2012)

Labelling a movie “quirky” is to risk damning it with faint praise. It suggests a benign eccentricity but an absence of bite or depth. Robot & Frank is most definitely benignly eccentric and doesn’t have much in the way of bite or depth. It doesn’t possess the stuff of great movies in its DNA, but nevertheless exudes an irresistible warmth.


Christopher D. Ford adapted his student film, concerning an elderly man cared for by a robot, for his fellow ex-classmate Jake Schreier. It’s set a few years hence but the only signs of this, besides the titular ‘bot, are widescreen Skype communication devices and the odd souped-up OAP vehicle belting it around the rural idyll. This pocket of the future appears hermetically sealed, and it’s where Frank (Frank Langella) finds himself in his dotage. He’s suffering from the early stages of dementia, but likes to re-enact his past glories as a cat burglar in the comfort of his home. He’s a regular at the local library, and regularly attempts to woo the librarian (Susan Sarandon). When his long-suffering son (James Marsden, who previously appeared with Langella in The Box and Superman Returns) presents him with a robot helper, Frank is in initially dismissive of the automaton. But, when Robot aids him in one of his shoplifting excursions, Frank begins to see him in a new light. He is no longer just a cleaner and dispenser of unwelcome dietary regimes; he’s a partner in crime.


The relationship between the two unfolds at an amiabl pace, as gruff Frank mellows in response to the unmodulated but soothing tones of Robot. It’s quite a feat that the chemistry between the two is so perfectly sustained, as Peter Sarsgaard, who voices Robot, never met Langella (Rachael Ma is inside the robot suit). When Frank eventually admits to his hippy daughter (Liv Tyler) that his helper has become his friend, it’s a genuinely touching moment and one we have no trouble believing. Schreier and Ford repeatedly make it clear that Robot has no emotions, but the benevolent tone of Sarsgaard will lead you to doubt this as much as Frank does.


The heist plot is very much secondary to the heart of the piece, but this conceit is where the few hiccups in plot and character lie. The idea that the designers of the robot would omit to programme it with the rule of law is scarcely credible, and a conversation on the subject doesn’t make it any more likely. There is also a mistaken assumption that, in order to get behind Frank’s thievery, Jeremy Strong’s designer (who is renovating the library) needs to be excessively shrill and boorish. Then there’s choice of book for Frank to steal; it’s a little on-the-nose (Don Quixote), inviting us to parallel our protagonist and his diligent sidekick with Cervantes’ work.


But the melancholy tone is affecting rather than cloying, and the humour comes naturally rather than being forced (such that a line about an enema feels out of place, thrown in for a cheap yuk). Robot’s meetings with the library help, Mr. Darcy, are very funny, resembling those awkward situations when you’re forced into conversation with someone to whom you have nothing to say. And Sarandon gives a lovely, touching performance in a small but significant supporting role. As great as Langella and Sarsgaard are, it’s the soulful kindness she displays at key moments that is most poignant.


This is a simple tale, and at times it the telltale signs of its expansion to fit feature length are evident (the police investigation scenes never quite play and come across as slightly laboured). But as a meditation on friendship and aging, Robot & Frank is subtle and insightful. The score, by Francis and the Lights, may exclaim a little too loudly, ‘This movie is quirky!” But that’s exactly what it is.

***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?