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

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.

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.

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.

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

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

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 .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

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.

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 ?