Skip to main content

Have a drink with your old man. Be somebody.

Nebraska
(2013)

(SPOILERS) There’s a feeling of structural familiarity pervading Alexander Payne’s latest film. As a storyteller he appears to favour the road trip as a means of exploring character, understandably so as the linear narrative does all the heavy lifting. Even though his films are laced with irony (often at the expense of the lead), his protagonist(s) is usually on some kind of emotional journey. It is here that Nebraska doesn’t quite follow the expected course. Bruce Dern’s Woody Grant experiences no great realisations or dramatic catharsis. For all the broadness of the events and people encountered on the old man's trip (to claim a mythical million dollar sweepstake prize), Payne’s success is in the subtler beats; morsels of understanding and insight come attached to neither profound revelations nor resounding emotional pay-offs.


That’s because Payne and writer Bob Nelson (this may not be a Payne script, but you wouldn’t know it) resist any urge they may have to open up Woody’s interior world. He remains, both admirably and frustratingly, uncommunicative. It is never clear quite how senile he is becoming (his wife Kate attests to his encroaching dysfunction, and putting him in a home is clearly a regular topic of conversation). His moments of lucidity suggest he is at least partly aware of the same thing as Kate (June Squibb) and his sons David (Will Forte) and Ross (Bob Odenkirk); that this is an elementary mail scam and his is a fool’s errand. As we discover, Woody doesn’t even have a great plan for what he will do with his fictional wealth; all he wants is to buy a new car and a compressor (although, touchingly, we discover there is another reason). When we first see him he is shambling along a busy road, bent (literally) on reaching his goal (he will walk to Nebraska to stake his claim if he has to), and repeated exhortations to see sense fail to put him off.


Eventually David decides to drive his father there, against the protestations of his mother. David, whose own life doesn’t amount to very much (he sells stereo systems, his sizeable girlfriend has moved out), sees it as an opportunity to spend some time with dad, aware that he may not have very long left. There’s little obvious to endear Woody to us. He’s neither approachable nor responsive, although his taciturn manner occasionally gives way to blunt or testy remarks. He’s also an alcoholic, and we learn anecdotally that he was a very poor father. On the first night of their journey Woody goes out, gets drunk and cuts his head open. The resulting delay necessitates a detour to Woody’s hometown of Hawthorne, where his brother Ray (little Ronny’s dad, Rance Howard) still lives. Payne settles his travelling show there for much of the remainder, and the diversion yields an unforced, often humorous exploration of the way people's attitudes change when there’s a whiff of money involved.


Payne’s starting point is so absurd (then again, traversing Iowa and Wisconsin on a lawnmower was sufficiently high concept that it had to be based on fact) that this might seem on the face of it about people who don’t know any better, and those that do still don’t know that much better. But the director isn’t offering a critique, or (particularly) satirising the working class Midwestern environment (one where everyone has been hit by recession). The terrain is more basic and encompassing than that. If Payne frequently spins his scenarios to the point of caricature, he also ensures there is always something recognisable at the root of them.


As David talks to those who knew his father growing up, he realises how much he doesn’t know about him; that he was shot down over Korea, that he had an affair. But he either doesn’t raise these points (in particular, there’s no gunning for a heroic war story anecdote) or Woody grouchily deflects them. We gradually build a picture of why the elderly Woody is the way he is; that the trauma of his war experiences steered him towards the bottle, how the man who was beaten by his father turned into a not very good father himself, and why the man who couldn’t say no to people turned inwards to the point where claims on his goodwill could no longer reach him. Indeed, the possibility that he may have a fortune puts him right back where he was before; now everyone demands what he “rightfully” owes. The truths of Payne’s film may lie in the small touches, but he paints the surrounding landscape with broad strokes.


Payne tells it that he considered Bruce Dern for Woody on first reading the script, but the studio wanted a big name (to be fair, an understandable demand given whims such as black and white photography). Dern’s a great actor, generally best used when tapping into his slightly crazed visage and naturally eccentric demeanour. He’s played more than his share of bad guys, but could always be relied on to parlay their intensity with a dangerous sense of humour. It’s a quality that can be found even when he's an ostensibly good guy (Silent Running). The actor has never gone away, but he’s been relegated to supporting roles of diminishing substance as the years have worn on (Django Unchained being a recent walk-on example). His greatest part in the last quarter century is also perhaps his funniest, as ‘Nam veteran Rumsfeld in Joe Dante’s The ‘burbs.


But Nebraska calls on something much more restrained. There’s the occasional flash of Dern’s instantly recognisable caustic wit or put down (a memorable scene of one-upmanship with his son, as they search train tracks for his mislaid false teeth, and his succinct conclusions about how he came to marry Kate), but this is a role built on the eyes as windows to the soul as much as anything, so its as well Dern’s are so expressive. To some extent, it’s disappointing that the role that got him an Oscar nomination (his second, and first in 35 years) is fairly atypical, but even in introverted mode the actor’s charisma is irrepressible. And there’s something about him that, as he gets older, allows him to be more intimidating rather than less (not unlike James Coburn in that respect). A moment should also be taken to consider Dern’s prodigious nasal hair; we’re used to see his wild locks, here a shock of receding white that announces his disarray, but Payne also takes every available opportunity to position the camera up Bruce’s hooter. The results are dense and forested.


My main point of trepidation about this film was the casting of David. If anything, his role is larger than Woody’s. It’s certainly more central, and the one that aligns most with the viewer’s gaze. And they cast Will Forte, the former SNL performer. My concerns arose chiefly from the laugh-free abomination that is MacGruber (I know, it has its fans; far away from me may they remain). I wasn’t sure I’d be able to suffer him causing a stink in an otherwise decent movie. But shorn of trying and failing to be funny, Forte is a surprise. He’s very good. David is well meaning, (mostly) passive and aware that his circumstances are unfulfilling. In a sense his father’s undeterrable quest is an example to him. It would be too much to call it a galvanising force but, for all his exasperation with his father’s antics, David is just as invested in the trip (he protests that he wants to get back home, and, when he is lying on the floor attempting to sleep as his parents share a nearby bed, you completely believe him, but he doesn’t have a whole lot awaiting his immediate attention). Perhaps when Kate accuses him of being just like his father she isn’t so far from the truth. David is the giving son, concerned with his own capacity for drowning his sorrows. The difference is he has yet to close himself off. Forte’s is the reactive role, the Tom Cruise part in Rain Man if you will, and so his performance is bound to be underrated. I may not think much of his comedic skills, but he can definitely pull off the dramatic.


Bob Odendirk is also very good in the lesser role of David’s older brother. Ross has become a relative success, a news presenter on the local TV station, but his finest moments come when he divests himself of maturity as he and David react against their assumed adult positions. His fight with one of his cousins is hilariously ineffectual (on both sides). And there’s something irresistible about the sons who become kids again when they have the chance to right a wrong against their old man.


The showiest role is June Squibb’s Kate. Previously she played Jack Nicholson’s ill-fated wife in Payne’s About Schmidt, and the initial scenes suggests she’s going to bully her way through the film as a heartless harridan, constantly putting her good for nothing husband down. Yet, almost as soon as she alights from a coach in Hawthorne, we see a different side of her; the coarse vulgarian who flashes gravestones and attests how nigh-on every man in town once tried to get into her knickers. Most delightfully, and confirming that only those who really love you have the right to put you down, she comes fearsomely to Woody’s defence when extended family members are demanding their pound of flesh. It’s the movie’s most memorable scene and understandably the one that bagged her the Oscar nod.


As for the assorted family, friends and acquaintances, they’re a mix of amateurs and professionals. At times the cracks in experience show, but generally they lend a feeling of authenticity to the proceedings. This is a town reeking of near destitution. Payne only references the state of the economy in passing, reflected in David’s idle cousins Cole and Bart and their moronic banter.  Stacey Keach is cast to typically antagonistic type as Ed, Woody’s former business partner. Payne makes one of his few significant missteps when he has David punch him following the particularly cruel humiliation of Woody; it’s over the top and unnecessary, positioned as a jab for justice, but there’s no triumph in hitting a pensioner (no matter how tough and threatening the old goat is). One notable scene has David meet an old girlfriend of Woody’s, who works at the newspaper office. The sequence is arresting in part because of the insights it affords us into Woody and his marriage, but also because Angela McEwan’s performance and delivery is fascinating to observe; compelling and yet simultaneously artificial (and she’s no novice at the acting lark).


This all could have been merely another quirky quaint obsession of an old man as he head off to find meaning. While Nebraska has an genial pace and the conclusion is kind off upbeat in aspect, Payne refuses to submit to character arcs. Forte’s life is not really any better off, Woody is no more communicative; there’s merely a brief moment of respite. Payne also avoids the twee by presenting a real banality to this world.  He undoubtedly has affection for his subjects, but what’s seen of their lives or awareness will only make you more appreciative of your own. There’s the recognisable drudgery of everyday conversation, saying absolutely nothing of significance and exaggerated to the point of near-ludicrousness; talking is just a distraction from a TV-induced trance. So there are sporadic and failed attempts at conversation, invariably involving repeated refrains on sports or cars. Rehearsed interactions are voiced; the womenfolk offer kindly pleasantries while the menfolk are unforthcoming. There’s a sense that the inability to express oneself is inevitably passed down, and each generation inevitably follows course. This comes with the static designates found in each family; all of a sudden one is in one’s twilight years repeating the same limited script. No movement is possible, and it is a state all too easy to slip into in some form.


The ramshackle familiarity of Payne’s film extends to the production side. While the anamorphic black and white photography suits the story, I can’t say I found it hugely impressive (Oscar nom or no Oscar nom). Quite possibly the lack of lustre is intentional, a means of capturing the barrenness of the landscape and these lives. Certainly, the widescreen vistas hold little impact (perhaps a consequence of the digital shoot). Likewise Mark Orton’s unadorned score. The pacing is purposefully unhurried, which perhaps tips Payne’s hat most as having made “that kind of picture” (if there is an elderly road trip subgenre). Amiable is the word.


Is this a Best Picture-worthy picture? I’d say not. It’s a lesser beast to both Payne’s previous nominees (a hat trick but no cigar?) because, while the central relationship is expertly sketched, the surrounding story isn’t sufficiently distinctive. As for the other nominations? I could quite see Nebraska going home empty-handed. Dern’s performance doesn’t hit enough colourful beats for the average voter, and I think this is one case where the career achievement award won’t happen (if it was a Best Supporting Actor nomination, it might be different). I’d bet on Squibb if not for the presence of Lupito Nyong’o and I’d go as far to suggest that Payne is the least likely to be recognised director. Original Screenplay isn’t going to happen and I’d be very surprised to see Phedon Papamichael bag the Cinematography gong.


Nebraska finds Payne developing further he familial themes the began exploring in The Descendants. As such, the distances and bonds of such relationships are the real strength here. Parents and siblings can mutually have very little in common, and may know next to nothing about each other really. But Payne locates an intractable response mechanism, whereby the protection and defence of family is demanded even when one has spent most of one’s time pointing out their failings. In an attempt to come up with a tangible end point Payne serves up something a little pat, but fortunately his leads rise above the forced neatness of these scenes.  If he is to remain fresh, the director should maybe needs to shake up his storytelling style a little but there’s no doubting that he has his characterisations down to a tee. For now, they are able to carry him. Payne isn’t really interested in making grand gestures of profundity, and that’s Nebraska most satisfying quality.


***1/2

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…

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 don't like bugs. You can't hear them, you can't see them and you can't feel them, then suddenly you're dead.

Blake's 7 2.7: Killer

Robert Holmes’ first of four scripts for the series, and like last season’s Mission to Destiny there are some fairly atypical elements and attitudes to the main crew (although the A/B storylines present a familiar approach and each is fairly equal in importance for a change). It was filmed second, which makes it the most out of place episode in the run (and explains why the crew are wearing outfits – they must have put them in the wash – from a good few episodes past and why Blake’s hair has grown since last week).
The most obvious thing to note from Holmes’ approach is that he makes Blake a Doctor-substitute. Suddenly he’s full of smart suggestions and shrewd guesses about the threat that’s wiping out the base, basically leaving a top-level virologist looking clueless and indebted to his genius insights. If you can get past this (and it did have me groaning) there’s much enjoyment to be had from the episode, not least from the two main guest actors.

When two separate events occur simultaneously pertaining to the same object of inquiry we must always pay strict attention.

Twin Peaks 1.5: The One-Armed Man
With the waves left in Albert’s wake subsiding (Gordon Cole, like Albert, is first encountered on the phone, and Coop apologises to Truman over the trouble the insulting forensics expert has caused; ”Harry, the last thing I want you to worry about while I’m here is some city slicker I brought into your town relieving himself upstream”), the series steps down a register for the first time. This is a less essential episode than those previously, concentrating on establishing on-going character and plot interactions at the expense of the strange and unusual. As such, it sets the tone for the rest of this short first season.

The first of 10 episodes penned by Robert Engels (who would co-script Fire Walk with Me with Lynch, and then reunite with him for On the Air), this also sees the first “star” director on the show in the form of Tim Hunter. Hunter is a director (like Michael Lehman) who hit the ground running but whose subsequent career has rather disapp…

An initiative test. How simply marvellous!

You Must Be Joking! (1965)
A time before a Michael Winner film was a de facto cinematic blot on the landscape is now scarcely conceivable. His output, post- (or thereabouts) Death Wish (“a pleasant romp”) is so roundly derided that it’s easy to forget that the once-and-only dining columnist and raconteur was once a bright (well…) young thing of the ‘60s, riding the wave of excitement (most likely highly cynically) and innovation in British cinema. His best-known efforts from this period are a series of movies with Oliver Reed – including the one with the elephant – and tend to represent the director in his pleasant romp period, before he attacked genres with all the precision and artistic integrity of a blunt penknife. You Must Be Joking! comes from that era, its director’s ninth feature, straddling the gap between Ealing and the Swinging ‘60s; coarser, cruder comedies would soon become the order of the day, the mild ribaldry of Carry On pitching into bawdy flesh-fests. You Must Be Joki…

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.

Well, who’s going to monitor the monitors of the monitors?

Enemy of the State (1998)
Enemy of the State is something of an anomaly; a quality conspiracy thriller borne not from any distinct political sensibility on the part of its makers but simple commercial instincts. Of course, the genre has proved highly successful over the years so it's easy to see why big name producers like Jerry Bruckheimer and Don Simpson would have chased that particular gravy boat. Yet they did so for some time without success; by the time the movie was made, Simpson had passed away and Bruckheimer was flying solo. It might be the only major film in the latter's career that, despite the prerequisite gloss and stylish packaging, has something to say. More significant still, 15 years too late, the film's warnings are finally receiving recognition in the light of the Edward Snowden revelations.

In a piece for The Guardian earlier this year, John Patterson levelled the charge that Enemy was one of a number of Hollywood movies that have “been softening us up f…

Luck isn’t a superpower... And it isn't cinematic!

Deadpool 2 (2018)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps it’s because I was lukewarm on the original, but Deadpool 2 mercifully disproves the typical consequence of the "more is more" approach to making a sequel. By rights, it should plummet into the pitfall of ever more excess to diminishing returns, yet for the most part it doesn't.  Maybe that’s in part due to it still being a relatively modest undertaking, budget-wise, and also a result of being very self-aware – like duh, you might say, that’s its raison d'être – of its own positioning and expectation as a sequel; it resolutely fails to teeter over the precipice of burn out or insufferable smugness. It helps that it's frequently very funny – for the most part not in the exhaustingly repetitive fashion of its predecessor – but I think the key ingredient is that it finds sufficient room in its mirthful melee for plot and character, in order to proffer tone and contrast.

You're going to need a nickname, cos I ain't saying that every time.

Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
(SPOILERS) I had a mercifully good time with Solo: A Star Wars Story, having previously gone from considering it a straight-up terrible idea when first announced, to cautious optimism with the signing of Phil Lord and Chris Miller, to abject pessimism with their replacement by little Ronnie Howard, to cautious optimism again with the advent of various trailers and clips. I have numerous caveats, but then that's been par for the course with the series ever since Return of the Jedi, whichever side of good or bad the individual entries end up falling. The biggest barrier to enjoyment, judging by others’ responses, seems to be the central casting of Aiden Ehrenreich; I actually thought he was really good, so the battle for my allegiance was half won right there. No, he isn't Harrison Ford, but he succeeds admirably in making Han Solo a likeable, brash, smug wannabe scoundrel. Less so at being scruffy looking, but you can’t have everything.

It looks as i…

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…