Skip to main content

Not bad for an old bag, huh?


Behind the Candelabra
(2013)

For a generation, knowledge of Liberace is probably limited to a passing gag in the first Austin Powers movie; “Yeah, and I can’t believe that Liberace was gay”. And so it appears was the blissful ignorance of the majority of star’s (predominately female) fan base. And yet the word flamboyant might have been invented for the performer.  Steven Soderbergh’s final film before his retirement/hiatus (albeit as director of a TV movie; without pause he has embarked on a mini-series, so his statements of intent should be viewed as lightly fried bullshit) was long in the planning, but a director known for his almost clinical reticence is perhaps the wrong guy to bring the story of an exemplar of excess to the screen.


The idea of Michael Douglas playing Liberace had been first mooted when the star and director first collaborated on Traffic. It wasn’t until 2008 that Richard LaGravenese was commissioned to adapt Scott Thorson’s memoir and Damon agreed to play Thorson. And then Soderbergh had trouble getting it off the ground because it was “too gay”. Like many of the better “biopics”, Behind the Candelabra tackles only a chunk of Liberace’s life, rather than the whole deal. So many true-life stories descend into a string of “and then this happened” scenes plopped next to each other with little impact. Instead we meet Liberace in his late 50s as he embarks on a relationship with Thorson, a 17-year old animal trainer. The film covers the final decade of the star’s life but focuses mainly on the four-year period during which they were together, and the subsequent messy fall-out. 


From the first moments, Soderbergh signposts that this is takes place during coked up excess of the ‘70s; we hear Donna Summer disco on the soundtrack. But anyone expecting wild (or gay) abandon will be disappointed. This film may have been expensive by TV movie standards ($23m), but it feels like a TV movie; limited in canvas and stylistic flourish (the craziest Soderbergh gets is his woozy-vision when Scott is high as a kite, but his camerawork is strictly intoxication-for-beginners). For all the decadence he’s decided on show, his approach feels very staid. I’m not sure Philip Kaufman (originally attached to a Liberace film with – God help us – Robin Williams) would informed the debauchery of the period better than Soderbergh, but at least he has a track record with carnal escapades.



So the indulge, likewise the humour. There are lot of laughs to be had from the absurd environment Scott enters, but Soderbergh isn’t a natural funny man. Witty perhaps (The Informant!) but not someone who you’d trust to direct a farce. The vanity of the plastic surgery Liberace submits to (“Will I be able to close my eyes?”) is only surpassed by Scott going under the knife to look like him (“I guess I should be flattered, him wanting me to look like him”), and Damon covered in silly putty looks not unlike Bruce Campbell in Army of Darkness after he’s been stretched. Rob Lowe appears as a surgeon whose own face is so pulled it hurts to look at (Lowe’s very good, but he almost doesn’t even need to open his mouth to have an impact). Then there’s Liberace’s desire to adopt Scott (“Why would a grown man want to adopt another grown man”).


But the first half of the picture meanders along, assuming that immodesty and saturnalia are sufficient drivers. LaGravenese script only develops a motor when the brewing dissatisfaction between Scott and Liberace blows. But even then, Scott’s disintegration feels familiar from other ‘70s period movies we’ve seen over the last decade or so (Boogie Nights instigating the cycle).


We are given little insight into Scott, although we spend most of the duration with him and are unquestioningly asked to sympathise with; he doesn’t come across as a gold digger, nor does he appear passionately smitten with the pianist. At least, Damon doesn’t sell us the idea that he is. Scott comes across as curiously passive, up until the point where Liberace moves on to fresh younger pickings. But the realisation of Scott iillustrates the problem with Soderbergh’s work all over; he’s too cool-headed to engage emotionally with a subject, particularly one that is all about (perhaps superficial) intensity and excess. He has set up a highly interior environment anyway, based in Scott’s literally closeted world, so we need greater understanding of him than we get; for example, we never see the reaction to his plastic surgery from his adopted parents (the movie seems to be leading to a homecoming, but then it occurs off screen).


And, aside from Damon being not quite there in terms of performance, there’s the issue of a man in his 40s playing someone 25 years younger. You never for a moment think that Scott is supposed to be 17, and so much of the nature of Liberace’s predilections fails to translate. Douglas may have been 10 years-too-old, but that’s a fairly by-the-by mismatch. And this isn’t bemoaning a lack of fidelity to the facts; it’s simply that a central point regarding the relationship doesn’t carry due to the casting.


Douglas is having a lot of fun as Liberace, and he’s entertaining, but what he’s doing feels like more of an impersonation than an immersive performance. That isn’t entirely his fault. Liberace is mostly glimpsed through Scott’s eyes, and it’s only occasionally that the veil drops. Rather than in the obvious areas of toupee and paunch, this is strongest in his relationship with his mother (an amazing, unrecognisable Debbie Reynolds; her “I’ll take a cheque” on winning at Liberace’s slot machine is priceless). Liberace goes through the motions of grief upon her passing, before informing Scott that he is finally free of her. As his peccadillos, one might expect him to take the blame in the relationship rather than Scott. The plastic surgery he coerces Scott into is absolutely loony, but the trouble of having a 40-year-old actor play his young buck is that Scott simply seems a bit dumb or to have concealed motives to permit this kind of manipulation.


Dan Aykroyd shows up for a typical Dan Akyroyd supporting part (as Liberace’s manager), while Scott Bakula does some great ‘70s porn ‘tache acting as the guy we assume headhunts Liberace’s young prospects.


Soderbergh’s approach of taking on projects as formal exercises ensures they bear the tell-tale signs of films made from the brain, not from the heart. Sometimes that works (the mind games of Side Effects), sometimes it falters (the action of Haywire is shorn of any rush of adrenaline). Here he has a great story to tell, but brings few insights. And, while he’s made something as superficially entertaining as Liberace’s glitzy attire, he has no real affinity for the accompanying extravagance or outrageousness.

***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.