Skip to main content

That wind you can feel is me breathing down your neck. Next time, I'll have you.


Rush
(2013)

You might think that champion of mediocrity Ron Howard couldn't go wrong with a story as compelling as this, but I never underestimate his unswerving capacity for blandness. He is capable of diminishing the most promising of material. The BBC smartly got the drop on this big screen telling of James Hunt/Nicki Lauda rivalry with an excellent documentary following the 1976 Formula One season. Peter Morgan’s script starts much earlier, but its meat is much the same. I’m not sure the movie is quite up to the doc’s high standard, but it’s light years ahead of anything Howard has made recently.


He has flirted with better-than-average before, of course. Splash might just be his most wholly satisfying movie, one he delivered early in his directing career. But Richie Cunningham’s peak came with the back-to-back Apollo 13 and Ransom, as he boyishly struggled to prove he could tackle manly subjects. It’s tempting to suggest he should just stick to biopics, on the evidence of 13 and Rush. But it might be better to say he should just stick to biopics that don’t stop long enough for the cracks to show. His Best Director Oscar came for his sloppily fanciful A Beautiful Mind, a film so intellectually arid and emotionally patronising you just knew the Academy wouldn’t be able to resist it. He followed it with a couple of so-so based-on-real-events films, Cinderella Man and Frost/Nixon. The latter in particular, while perfectly serviceable, illustrated that Howard has no fever for storytelling, lacks any passionate views and is so devoid of nuance that subtlety must be overtly written into his scripts; at which point it no longer is (subtle).


Howard’s all-American wholesomeness and complete lack of guile means that, whatever his basic technical grasp, limited the genres he can make a success from. It should be no surprise that his well-meaning pictures, whatever their merits, have a sliver of genuineness to them; they foreground his soggy, sentimental nature (Cocoon, Parenthood). In contrast, when he attempts satire (EDtv) he lacks the will to flow through. When he is asked to fire his imagination (Willow, The Da Vinci Code, The Grinch) the results are insipid at best, garbage at worst. As long as Ronny sticks to the straight and narrow then, and doesn’t exceed his very real limitations, he has a good chance of making something half decent.


The best thing he does in Rush is to get out of the way. The real stars are Anthony Dod Mantle's invigorating, eye-popping cinematography, which does an incredible job of masking how relatively cheap the movie is, and the performances of Chris Hemsworth and Daniel Bruhl as Hunt and Lauda. I should note that the editing of the race scenes is impressive, although I’m not sure if that’s less to do with Howard’s regular editors Daniel P Hanley and Mike Hill and more a result of Mantle’s penchant for grabbing shots in the most unlikely of places; he wants to get you right in there with the cars, inside helmets, even within wheels. It’s Mantle who ensures there’s immediacy to the images. But fair play to Hanley and Hill; this time they show that they are no slouches at putting it all together.


Morgan’s script plays up the polar opposite, chalk and cheese aspects of Hunt and Lauda. Both can be shits, in their personal lives and professionally. Hunt is the playboy, racing for the thrill of it, and Hemsworth perfectly captures his charisma (many of his lines don’t need inventing). Lauda ‘s the buttoned down mandroid. Racing is a technical, unemotive exercise. As a clash of personalities, it’s too good to true so it really shouldn’t need to crowbar in the point.


There are some strong scenes between Hemsworth and Olivia Wilde (as Hunt’s wife Suzy Miller), but Morgan is rarely able to resist saying it rather than showing it; Hunt’s interview with the press, when he delivers emotional payback to Suzy for running off with Richard Burton, is far better conceived than the rather obvious outbursts and dinner date split that precede it. It may have been prudishness on Howard’s put that the movie stints on Hunt’s, but it’s quite likely that if he had gone there he would have felt the need to offer some moralising about the long-term debilitatory effects of such behaviour.


Lauda’s perfunctory registry office marriage to Marlene (Alexandra Maria Lara) is a moment where Morgan manages to show the bond between them, in spite of his emotional remoteness, and there’s a charming scene in which a couple of rapt fans implore Lauda to give to take their car for a spin. He obliges, but drives like an old lady, until Marlene persuades him to show his mettle. And he does, overcoming his ingrained caution to impress the girl. So later it’s a shame that the incessant cuts to Marlene fretting over his races teeter towards cliché (sometimes less fidelity better serves the drama). Despite the variable material, the two leads do fine work. If they are unable to overcome Howard’s literal approach, they nevertheless embody their characters. I was particularly impressed with Hemsworth, mainly because he’s been typecast as brooding man hulks lately.


Peter Morgan apparent disinterest in understatement may be a good match for Ronny in terms of sensibility, or maybe Howard just seizes on the script’s least aspects and enlarges them. I don’t think so, however; Morgan may be an awards darling, but often his choices are less than sophisticated. While playing up the rivalry between the two is entirely understandable, the decision to spell this tension out (again) in a contrived and over-scripted airport scene ends the movie on a stodgy, rather dissatisfying, note. It’s one of the few times Hemsworth and Bruhl clearly struggle to find their footing. It’s also classic Howard; less spoon-feeding the viewer than sticking the utensil all the way down their throat.


Some of the narrative inventions follow course (Hunt’s altercation with a journalist suggest the makers weren’t confident that he would be sufficiently sympathetic; an engineer suggests to Hunt at a crucial moment in the race that there would be no shame if he eased off now) and the editing choices (clichéd cuts to friends and family glued to TV sets during the races, images of Lauda's lady love flashing before his eyes when he considers his choices) reinforce this; an inability to trust your audience to get it.


Nevertheless, most of the time we are pulled along, rather than overly conscious of the lack of artistry and finesse behind Howard’s choices. This might be the most efficient he has been as a director; he has fine-tuned his movie, such that the results are lean and punchy (think of any previous Formula One movie, and a lack of bloat will likely not be a defining quality).  But it leaves me wanting what is absent. For instance, I’d like to see a Michael Mann F1 film; he’d imbue it with the grace and visual poetry foreign to a Ronnyfest.


There are other areas where Morgan and Howard might have provided greater context, but on balance they may have made the correct decisions in terms of maintain focus on the main story. Even though I know needs (and budget) must, I felt short-changed on the racing front at times. What is done is done highly inventively (and, aside from some CGI flames, the joins between live action and special effects are seamless) but we never reach the point where we witness a full, thrilling race or glimpse that hypnotic quality as the drivers go lap after lap (the closest we come is hearing Simon Taylor’s commentary). Individual slices of racing tension are proffered but we are denied a full feast.


Similarly, Morgan fails to really build the progress of the season; all you know is that Lauda was ahead, there was a horrific accident, Hunt caught up, and then there was the Japan finale (likewise, aside from Lauda's teammate, they may as well have been the only two guys on the racetrack). There are brief snatches of the politics of the race, and the dirty tricks employed to get ahead are fascinating. Maybe joining these dots has been sacrificed for the sake of momentum, but there’s a sense that the picture didn’t need much to achieve drive away with crucial added substance. The result is that when there is a by the by, it is distracting rather than an added bonus; we hear about he six-wheeled Tyrell but the immediate consequence is that we want to see it too. As for the depiction of key moments, the Lauda crash, and his recovery, are appropriately gruesome and toe curling (the scenes with his bandages, the vacuuming of his lungs). And his six-week recovery is every bit as amazing, no matter how many times you hear about it.


I’m all for doing what is needed to make a true story work as a fiction but sometimes the dramatic licence grates a bit. Hunt only realises Lauda is back in action on the day of the race? Did he not have to qualify? And the Japan-set final race of the season doesn’t appear to gain anything by adding rainfall throughout. It might underline Lauda’s decision, but his comment in the BBC documentary that he would make the same choice again is more powerful because it denies the benefit of hindsight. In contrast, something is off with the timing of Hunt not realising he has won the championship; it is factually correct, but plays without any impact. The coda, as mentioned, is weak, even more so the bringing us up to date, as a hurried attempt to cover all the bases.


There are some strong supporting turns. Maria Lara is especially good, although Olivia Wilde is not so well catered for as Hunt’s girlfriend/wife; she has a couple of good scenes, but her character is underdeveloped, leaving it to her free-hanging ‘70s fashions to make an impression. Presumably Howard is a big Green Wing fan as both Stephen Mangan and Julian Rhind-Tutt appear (as Hunt’s successive engineers). I can’t remember a note of Hans Zimmer’s score, which either means he allowed the revs to speak for themselves or it was one of his throw it in the pile production line efforts.


It wouldn’t be feasible for me to wholeheartedly endorse a Ron Howard movie. But Rush more than lives up to its title (uninspired though that title may be). How much of this is down to his cinematographer, well... Ron can feel safe reverting to type with another Robert Langdon escapade now.

****

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

I think my mother put a curse on us.

Hereditary (2018)
(SPOILERS) Well, the Hereditary trailer's a very fine trailer, there's no doubt about that. The movie as a whole? Ari Aster's debut follows in the line of a number of recent lauded-to-the-heavens (or hells) horror movies that haven't quite lived up to their hype (The Babadook, for example). In Hereditary's case, there’s no doubting Ari Aster's talent as a director. Instead, I'd question his aptitude for horror.

Just make love to that wall, pervert!

Seinfeld 2.10: The Statue
The Premise
Jerry employs a cleaner, the boyfriend of an author whose book Elaine is editing. He leaves the apartment spotless, but Jerry is convinced he has made off with a statue.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

There’s still one man out here some place.

Sole Survivor (1970)
(SPOILERS) I’m one for whom Sole Survivor remained a half-remembered, muddled dream of ‘70s television viewing. I see (from this site) the BBC showed it both in 1979 and 1981 but, like many it seems, in my veiled memory it was a black and white picture, probably made in the 1950s and probably turning up on a Saturday afternoon on BBC2. Since no other picture readily fits that bill, and my movie apparition shares the salient plot points, I’ve had to conclude Sole Survivor is indeed the hitherto nameless picture; a TV movie first broadcast by the ABC network in 1970 (a more famous ABC Movie of the Week was Spielberg’s Duel). Survivor may turn out to be no more than a classic of the mind, but it’s nevertheless an effective little piece, one that could quite happily function on the stage and which features several strong performances and a signature last scene that accounts for its haunting reputation.

Directed by TV guy Paul Stanley and written by Guerdon Trueblood (The…

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …

It’s all Bertie Wooster’s fault!

Jeeves and Wooster 3.4: Right Ho, Jeeves  (aka Bertie Takes Gussie's Place at Deverill Hall)
A classic set-up of crossed identities as Bertie pretends to be Gussie and Gussie pretends to be Bertie. The only failing is that the actor pretending to be Gussie isn’t a patch on the original actor pretending to be Gussie. Although, the actress pretending to be Madeline is significantly superior than her predecessor(s).

What you do is very baller. You're very anarchist.

Lady Bird (2017)
(SPOILERS) You can see the Noah Baumbach influence on Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut, with whom she collaborated on Frances Ha; an intimate, lo-fi, post-Woody Allen (as in, post-feted, respected Woody Allen) dramedy canvas that has traditionally been the New Yorker’s milieu. But as an adopted, spiritual New Yorker, I suspect Gerwig honourably qualifies, even as Lady Bird is a love letter/ nostalgia trip to her home city of Sacramento.