Skip to main content

Screw the FDA, I’m gonna be DOA!

Dallas Buyers Club
(2013)

(SPOILERS) Dallas Buyers Club is almost, very nearly but not quite, your classic Oscar bait fare. Based on a true story (although loosely appears to be the more than operative word), it depicts a lone crusader struggling against an oppressive establishment. Even better, said crusader is required to suffer a debilitating illness (actor transformation=Oscar nomination) and a bona fide arc all the way from bigotry to compassion. What more could the Academy wish for? Maybe a little less masturbation (never a vote winner)? Otherwise, compelling as the telling of Dallas Buyers Club is, it bears all the hallmarks of precision engineering in its emotional and narrative beats, which belies the low-budget indie vibe of the picture itself.


Such shameless manipulation of material didn’t attract the greater cinema-going public, however. Now there are up to 10 Best Picture nominees, there’s more potential for films to slip through the gaps, with Nebraska and Her having brought up the rear this year, closely followed by Dallas; one would generally expect a “fight the good fight” tale to catch on to greater effect. It was the only one in the line-up (12 Years a Slave is more about suffering than reacting), so I can only figure audience wariness about an AIDS drama that didn’t feature the friendly face of Tom Hanks put them off. That, and Matthew McConaughey really does look awful, dangerously emaciated. Nevertheless, his shambolic, skeletal, unkempt features must have been as much of a sure thing with voters as Hanks looking a bit pasty. Still, Tom was still a cuddly AIDS victim; McConaughey’s appearance as Ron Woodroof approximates the rat with an unspecified venereal disease in Meet the Feebles.


McConaughey is superb, of course, but it’s undeniably a showboat turn. Every bit as much as DiCaprio’s in The Wolf of Wall Street (Ejiofor probably had the most difficult job getting votes, internalised as much of his performance is), but with the added bonus that Woodroof goes from racist, homophobic, self-centred, duplicitous arsehole to impassioned spokesman for effective AIDS treatment eviscerating the inveterately corrupt Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the process. His wily deadbeat charm is given a positive outlet, and as he attempts to smuggle prescription drugs across the Mexico border, fully able to argue his case against the officials who would bar him (claiming a car load of pills is a 90 day supply), he’s an easy win for a sympathetic turnaround. That and, of course, his initially bilious but eventually affectionate business partnership with Jared Leto’s trans woman Rayon.


Leto’s casting incited some criticism from the transgender community, which may or may not be merited, but it’s the first role where I can actually recall liking the actor so superficially that’s reason enough to give him the Best Supporting Actor gong. I suspect it will be one of those Oscars that has little or no effect on his career prospects (I hadn’t realised he’d been off the screen for four years, probably because I didn’t miss him). Like much of the screenplay from Craig Borten and Melisa Wallack (which Borten had doing the rounds since 1996), invention in the interests of narrative trajectory is the name of the game; there was no Rayon in the life of the real Woodroof, but without her there’s no touching emotional progress for Ron.


The level of fabrication has received complaints too and, while I generally have little sympathy for those who expect a dramatisation to stick to the facts, the level of calculation here is at times overpowering. After all, if the purportedly-in-real-life bisexual Ron with no homophobic views – as cited by some who knew him – were portrayed, there would be a whole opportunity missed for a learning curve (and for him to feel what it’s like when his own friends reject him). There’s a vague sense that such attempts to up the ante dotted throughout (a T Cell count of 9, with 30 days to live; he’s like a superman, living for seven more years!)


Jennifer Garner’s friendly doctor Eve, the polar force to Denis O’Hare’s malignant Dr Sevard, is a considerably less effective invention than Rayon. Rayon’s a classically larger-than-life supporting character and an effective contrast to Ron, but Eve is merely there as the sympathetic smiling platonic straight woman to Woodroof’s antics. Likewise, as good as O’Hare and Michael O’Neill (as an FDA official) are, they pretty much one-dimensional villains once the lines of opposition are drawn. At times there’s a The People vs Larry Flynt sense of beckoning outrage in the character of Woodward and his interactions with the powers that be, and its fairly irresistible. Griffin Dunne has his most likeable turn in years as a disgraced doctor hiding out in Mexico, who puts Ron onto the good stuff.


The most engrossing aspect of the picture may not be the performances that got all the press. Rather, it’s the battle against an unjust system, and it’s the one area where the makers pull few punches, for which they are to be congratulated. AZT is presented as a poison from the first, a highly toxic substance most AIDS patients can’t tolerate (the end credits note Woodroof’s achievement as fostering lower doses of AZT, which might be a slight climb down as up until then it has been roundly denounced in any quantity). As Ron says, “The only people AZT helps are the people who sell it”; “That’s the shit that rots your insides. What a surprise; FDA approved”.


Ron’s metamorphosis from abuser of his temple to evangeliser about avoiding anything that damage his immune system further, right the way down to processed foods, is an inspiring one. And the venom with which the medical establishment turn on him for not falling in line, and effectively taking away their business, is instructive (one thing about Woodroof is that he isn’t suddenly Mother Teresa; he’s not running a charity, he’s running his own business – albeit one where he gets around the illegality of selling drugs by running a club membership service that covers costs). Before long the IRS are down on him (as he notes, that’s how they got Capone), and Ron is unequivocal that the game is rigged; “The pharmaceutical companies pay the FDA to push their product”. This is, after all, an organisation that attempts to label natural supplementsas drugs in order to ban them.


Director Jean-Marc Vallée’s use of handheld camera rarely feels distracting or intrusive; it’s a testament to the strength of the story and performances that the choices only become noticeable when it is germane; the ringing that elevates on the soundtrack preceding one of Woodroof’s blackouts. Occasionally he lacks subtlety (the magazine cover featuring Rock Hudson - nigh-on the first shot - is easily the clumsiest moment) but the picture as a whole is both immersive and immediate; real locations and natural lighting may be  a consequence of budgetary limitations, but they scream authenticity (the soundtrack is almost entirely forgettable, however).


It’s always fun too, when a character turns out to be an unlikely master of disguise.  Especially when this involves dressing up as a priest. It worked for Peter Sellers. It worked for Norman Wisdom. It works for Matt (“And a blessed day to you, sir”). No one could accuse Dallas Buyers Club of being a slavishly literal biopic, although it’s as guilty as any of wiring itself for maximum contrivance. But like the best of those in its genre espousing even a whisper of social conscience, there is fire in it’s belly; a cause to be rallied behind. The film will be remembered mainly for McConaughey’s crash diet, but the meat of the picture is Woodroof’s David and Goliath struggle.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.