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

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…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

Stupid adult hands!

Shazam! (2019)
(SPOILERS) Shazam! is exactly the kind of movie I hoped it would be, funny, scary (for kids, at least), smart and delightfully dumb… until the final act. What takes place there isn’t a complete bummer, but right now, it does pretty much kill any interest I have in a sequel.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.