Skip to main content

Now I know why Sylvia Plath put her head in a toaster.

Before Midnight
(2013)

Richard Linklater’s career has skewed from resolutely indie beginnings (Slacker) to disappointingly unselfconscious studio fare (a remake of Bad News Bears) taking in experimental posturing along the way (Waking Life). He always seems to have something on the go, much of which I’ve enjoyed (and a few I haven’t). As such, he appears to have a not dissimilar work ethic to Steven Soderbergh but puts himself into his pictures in a manner that wouldn’t even occur to the ‘bergh. While I’m not always up-to-date with Linklater’s pictures, I have made time for each of his Before trilogy and its been consistently interesting to catch up with his protagonists as each new near-decade passes.


These aren’t films without their flaws. For one thing, it’s still difficult to watch Ethan Hawke in anything and not have in mind the goofy Dead Poets Society kid. While Hawke may not be a whole lot like Jesse (I really don’t know) the mannerisms are his, and he carries them from film to film like great weight around his shoulders; he’s not really as cool as he’d like to be (it helps his credibility therefore that he has ploughed a non-Hollywood furrow). Additionally, if existential angst and philosophical daydreaming are perfectly realised in the stretched realities of Linklater’s A Scanner Darkly and Waking Life, in these films they rarely rise above the level of energetic student discourse. It doesn’t make the discussion less interesting (one thing the films get right every time is the creation of conversation) but, particularly as time goes on, the same framing of conversations begins to sound increasingly on the affected side.


In context, that may suit parts of Before Midnight. In which we find Jesse and Céline (Julie Delpy) as a couple of a decade’s standing on holiday in Greece with their twin daughters. Previous romantic encounters have given way to a fully-fledged relationship, and with it love struck reverie has been replaced by the disaffected realisation of the multitudinous flaws each has. They resent that there is no time to be themselves or to reflect on the ideas that once were so essential.  Each becomes a projection of the dissatisfactions of the other and, where before we delighted in their conversations, now we are drawn to the chunks they tear off.  Jesse is weighed down by self-regarding guilt over failing to spend time with his son by his ex-wife (he lives in America), while Céline is increasingly intolerant of what she sees as Jesse’s selfishness and the growing feeling that she may no longer love him.


As per before, Linklater shares scripting duties with Hawke and Delpy. Their shared experience of parenting has informed Before Midnight, and the discontent that may be bred within the family unit is laid bare unstintingly. Their conversation is an altercation waiting to happen, first located on an extended car journey, then at a meal with friends where they are staying, and finally in and around a hotel earmarked for the final romantic night of their holiday (but which becomes anything but). Whether or not this represents the last legs of the partnership or they are able to salvage something from the wreckage, no punches are pulled in exchanges that range from petty to cruel to tearful. 


The expansive philosophical discourses of previous films are now brought down to earth by the accusation of pretentiousness on Jesse’s part (not by Céline, but from cheerful Stefanos played by Panos Koronis). Quite understandably, since the premise of Jesse’s prospective fourth novel sounds quite dreadful. When Jesse and Céline have the chance to pick up the flights of philosophical inquiry they one relished, it doesn’t ring true. One might argue that this is partly because they are going through the motions (Céline opines that she now barely has a minute alone to think during the day, and that’s usually on the toilet). But it also feels like an attempt on the filmmakers’ parts to nurture something of the appeal of the earlier installments, even thought the very environment (in both temperament and age) that fostered such thought has now gone. The dinner party is a particular failure here; not enough is made of the contrast between the fresh young couple Céline and Jesse once were and too much of the “wise” insights of Patrick (Walter Lassally may be a great cinematographer, but he’s a lousy actor).


There’s a greater problem, which may just be me, but I wasn’t able buy into the idea that Jesse and Céline have been a couple for all these years. All I could see was Hawke and Delpy pretending to be a couple that have been together for all these years. They lack a lived-in vibe; even estranged, we need to be able to see familiarity between them that has developed into Céline’s brittleness and Jesse’s standoffishness. The two actors are fine – great even – getting to know each other, but the conceit just doesn’t quite play here.


Nevertheless, the protracted hotel bedroom argument, moving from going-through-the-motions beginnings of lovemaking to no-holds-barred verbal fisticuffs, is riveting viewing. Only occasionally does staginess or studied moments intrude (the double returns of Céline to the room, as without a conversation there is no movie). I might complain that there is a tad too much emphasis on Céline being unlikable, but it is quite easy to see how Jesse’s ingratiating perpetual teenager side would inspire her ire (his time machine gambit may be designed to show his freeform invention, but it is as uninspired as Celine’s intentionally infuriating bimbo impression).


Before Sunrise didn’t really impress me all that much. I saw at the cinema on its release, and it was likeable but very slight. That didn’t change on revisiting it with the release of Before Sunset. In contrast, Sunset was a genuinely great movie. It managed to distill all that was nascent and half-formed in its predecessor, becoming something genuinely affecting and deeply romantic in the process. Midnight probably falls somewhere between the two. As a two-hander it is more impressive than either at times, but at its centre I struggle believing these two are in the place the film sets them. As expected, the trio are non-committal about a third follow-up. I have a feeling that, if it happens, the barbs of Before Midnight could give way to an aching regret and melancholy. And Celine and Jesse in their 60s might be more interesting still. Within such a context my doubts of “Were they ever a couple at all?” might sit more comfortably.


***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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

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'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.

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 .

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.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

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 ?

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for