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

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

You're skipping Christmas! Isn't that against the law?

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Ex-coke dealer Tim Allen’s underwhelming box office career is, like Vince Vaughn’s, regularly in need of a boost from an indiscriminate public willing to see any old turkey posing as a prize Christmas comedy.  He made three Santa Clauses, and here is joined by Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple planning to forgo the usual neighbourhood festivities for a cruise.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

We’ll bring it out on March 25 and we’ll call it… Christmas II!

Santa Claus: The Movie (1985)
(SPOILERS) Alexander Salkind (alongside son Ilya) inhabited not dissimilar territory to the more prolific Dino De Laurentis, in that his idea of manufacturing a huge blockbuster appeared to be throwing money at it while being stingy with, or failing to appreciate, talent where it counted. Failing to understand the essential ingredients for a quality movie, basically, something various Hollywood moguls of the ‘80s would inherit. Santa Claus: The Movie arrived in the wake of his previously colon-ed big hit, Superman: The Movie, the producer apparently operating under the delusion that flying effects and :The Movie in the title would induce audiences to part with their cash, as if they awarded Saint Nick a must-see superhero mantle. The only surprise was that his final cinematic effort, Christopher Columbus: The Discovery, wasn’t similarly sold, but maybe he’d learned his lesson by then. Or maybe not, given the behind-camera talent he failed to secure.

It's their place, Mac. They have a right to make of it what they can. Besides, you can't eat scenery!

Local Hero (1983)
(SPOILERS) With the space of thirty-five years, Bill Forsyth’s gentle eco-parable feels more seductive than ever. Whimsical is a word often applied to Local Hero, but one shouldn’t mistake that description for its being soft in the head, excessively sentimental or nostalgic. Tonally, in terms of painting a Scottish idyll where the locals are no slouches in the face of more cultured foreigners, the film hearkens to both Powell and Pressburger (I Know Where I’m Going!) and Ealing (Whisky Galore!), but it is very much its own beast.

On a long enough timeline, the survival of everyone drops to zero.

Fight Club (1999)
(SPOILERS) Still David Fincher’s peak picture, mostly by dint of Fight Club being the only one you can point to and convincingly argue that that the source material is up there with his visual and technical versatility. If Seven is a satisfying little serial-killer-with-a-twist story vastly improved by his involvement (just imagine it directed by Joel Schumacher… or watch 8mm), Fight Club invites him to utilise every trick in the book to tell the story of not-Tyler Durden, whom we encounter at a very peculiar time in his life.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.