Skip to main content

Sometimes it's good to do what you're supposed to do when you're supposed to do it.

Frances Ha
(2012)

Noah Baumbach’s films have a tendency to leave me a tad unfazed (The Squid and the Whale, Greenberg). They’re just okay. He’s not the golden god of indie filmmaking some have made out. And his collaborations with Wes Anderson (who I do, ever so slightly, revere) elicited the latter’s weakest features (The Life Aquatic). So his most recent picture comes as pleasant surprise. For all its slightness, self-conscious quirkiness and French New Wave referencing, Frances Ha is an immensely likeable little film. Much of that may be down to the luminous presence of lead actress Greta Gerwig, who also co-wrote the script with beau Baumbach.


Gerwig also appeared in Baumbach’s previous film, Greenberg. Her presence underscores the much over-used but unfortunately most appropriate epithet for this director’s mode; quirky. Frances Ha reeks of quirk. At times the soundtrack choices are just too much, suggesting Baumbach’s is dead set on the picture spontaneously combusting with loveable eccentricity. But Gerwig ensures that its heart remains intact, portraying her titular oddball with accompanying headstrong goofiness and an insight that outweighs Frances’ more infuriating qualities.


Frances is a struggling dancer, hitting her late-twenties (the film consistently jokes that she looks older than she is, to her vague dismay) and apparently accepting of a lifestyle where she hasn’t yet made it, got ahead or found her groove. She continues to nurse dream scenarios of success while taking comfort in a near-symbiotic relationship (they’re the same person but with different hair) with best pal and flatmate Sophie (Mickey Summer). Frances and her boyfriend split up because she is reluctant to part with Sophie, but when the latter moves out Frances is faced with trying to maintain her non-compromising but non-descript inclinations. She moves in with a couple of artists (Adam Driver’s Lev and Michael Zegen’s Benji) and finds herself gadflying from place to place (her family in Sacramento, her old college for a summer job, sharing an apartment with a fellow dancer, a weekend break in Paris).


Throughout, we see the contrast between Frances, who maintains the yen to follow her chosen career but lacks the assertiveness to take hold of her life, and her estranged best friend. She frequently states what she doesn’t want, but allows herself to be carried along by a stream of fallow encounters because she lacks a strong enough grip on what she does.  And then she concocts fabulations to make her lot seem better (as much for her own benefit as to sound impressive to others).  Whereas Sophie, at least from Frances’ point of view, reduces herself at every turn in the service of an unfulfilling relationship. The strained friendship between the two is at the core of Frances Ha, and the keynote speech comes during an initially toe-curlingly uncomfortable dinner attended by Frances (where she appears completely out of touch with her peer group, either through age or cultural reference points). She gushes her difficult-to-explain vision of the pure relationship she seeks, encapsulated by a moment where one catches the eye of one’s soulmate across a crowded party and that unspoken exchange holds within it a dimension of reality all its own. The pay-off to this comes late in the proceedings, when it is clear that Sophie (however platonically) occupies that space, but as much as Frances yearns for mutuality it is not returned.


The film is frequently very funny, in that very necessarily quirky fashion. Frances’ notions and inability to set forward on her path see her trying to replay her relationship with Sophie with others (she and Benji become undateables together, the girl she moves in with staunchly refuses to engage in play fights) and her idiosyncratic outlook and encounters yield some very funny scenes and dialogue (her excuse for failure being that “I’m not a real person”, a running gag concerning maritime greetings, her mad dash for an ATM, Benji working on a spec script for Gremlins 3).


But the film’s strongest sensation is a lingering melancholy beloved of the indie relationship dramedy. Frances’ lifestyle cannot persist because she does not have the means (unlike the arty rich boys) or company to allow it. She must move on, however reluctantly. There’s a tone that will be familiar to those who’ve seen enough Woody Allen or Jim Jarmusch films, and the decision to shoot in black-and-white appears to consciously evoke those directors. Certainly, the accepting note where the film finishes, with Frances alone but in her own apartment, having engaged in some compromise (she has taken the secretarial job with the dance company) in order to pursue her career goals (she has put on a well-received performance piece) has the feel of mid-period Woody Allen (1980s). There his characters find a point not of despair or celebration but a furrow somewhere in between, and so are able to continue.


There’s also the effect of the muse to consider in Frances Ha’s fruitful germination. Just as Allen continually worked with then wife Mia Farrow, so Baumbach is inspired by his romantic relationship with Gerwig. It appears to have paid creative dividends. Elsewhere, some have found the French New Wave referencing a distraction but it’s so long since I inveigled myself in that period I was only intermittently aware of the references (some of the soundtrack choices, which I found an affectation too far, are doubtless specific references so no doubt one’s appreciation for them relates to one’s capacity for homage).


And one’s appreciation of Frances Ha as a whole will ultimately rest on one’s indulgence of Gerwig. I found her performance beguiling; a mass of foibles but with an essential soulfulness blazing through the mistakes and self-sabotaging misdirections. Gerwig also stars in Baumbach’s upcoming feature, which bodes well on this evidence. He may have traversed from slightly off-putting quirkiness to winning quirkiness.


***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…

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.

I still think it’s a terrible play, but it makes a wonderful rehearsal.

Room Service (1938)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers step away from MGM for a solitary RKO outing, and a scarcely disguised adaption of a play to boot. Room Service lacks the requisite sense of anarchy and inventiveness of their better (earlier) pictures – even Groucho’s name, Gordon Miller, is disappointingly everyday – but it’s nevertheless an inoffensive time passer.

This better not be some 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea shit, man.

Underwater (2020)
(SPOILERS) There’s no shame in a quality B-movie, or in an Alien rip-off done well. But it’s nevertheless going to need that something extra to make it truly memorable in its own right. Underwater, despite being scuppered at the box office, is an entirely respectable entry in both those arenas from director William Eubank, but like the recent Life (which, in fairness, had an ending that very nearly elevated it to the truly memorable), it can’t quite go that extra mile, or summon that much needed sliver of inspiration to set it apart.

Time wounds all heels.

Go West (1940)
(SPOILERS) Comedy westerns were nothing new when the Marx Brothers succumbed – Buster Keaton had made one with the same title fifteen years earlier – but theirs served to underline how variable the results could be. For every Bob Hope (Son of Paleface) there’s a Seth McFarlane (A Million Ways to Die in the West). In theory, the brothers riding roughshod over such genre conventions ought to have been uproarious, but they’d rather run out of gas by this point, and the results are, for the most part, sadly pedestrian. Even Go West's big train-chase climax fails to elicit the once accustomed anarchy that was their stock in trade.

Shall we bind the deal with a kiss? Or, five dollars in cash? You lose either way.

The Big Store (1941)
(SPOILERS) Three go mad in a department store. The results are undoubtedly more diverting than low point Go West, but it feels as if there is even more flotsam to wade through to get to the good stuff in The Big Store, which is almost exclusively delivered by Groucho as private detective and bodyguard Wolf J Flywheel. Perhaps surprisingly, however, the climax is one of the better ones, an extended chase sequence through the store that is frequently quite inventive.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

Goodbye, Mr Chimps.

At the Circus (1939)
(SPOILERS) This is where the brothers sink into their stretch of middling MGM movies, now absent the presence of their major supporter Irving Thalberg; it’s probably for the best this wasn’t called A Day at the Circus, as it would instantly have drawn unflattering comparisons with the earlier MGM pair that gave them their biggest hits. Nevertheless, there’s enough decent material to keep At the Circus fairly sprightly (rather than “fairly ponderous”, as Pauline Kael put it).

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.

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 …