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.



Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

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