Skip to main content

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet
(2013)

(SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection, though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental.


Appreciation for Jeunet’s milieu is not entirely dependent on one’s inclinations. His last picture, Micmacs, left me cold, evidencing what happens when he relies purely on mannered technique, performances and gags, with nothing in support. It’s his most indulgent film, the one where it’s easy to say, “This is where the co-director of Delicatessen would eventually finish up, his worst excesses allowed to burgeon unchecked”. In between we had his macabre, sumptuous fantasy City of the Lost Children, Alien Resurrection (one I’ve warmed to over the years, although I quite understand why the majority haven’t) and his masterpiece Amélie (I have seen A Very Long Engagement, but it warrants the least likely criticism I’d expect to level at a Jeunet film; it’s rather forgettable).


Amélie remains the perfect marriage of Jeunet’s captivating visual style, peculiar characterisation (housed within the transcendent Audrey Tautou), strangely complementary facility for whimsy and the sardonic, and rhythmic, musical approach to editing (the score by Yann Tiersen is an all-time great). Perhaps I shouldn’t have worried too much about Spivet since Amélie, although it is a wilfully upbeat confection with a positive destination that is never in doubt, is also resistant to schmaltz and tear-jerking. Jeunet is quite capable of moving the viewer, but he’s too sprightly and quick-witted to become treacly or cloying.


So it is with Spivet, which may not share Amélie’s cinematographer (Bruno Delbonnel has recently worked with the Coens and Tim Burton) but Thomas Hardmeier lends the proceedings a similarly rainbow worldview.  In particular, the landscapes are striking and luminous, be it the Spivet family farm or the views from the train aboard which T.S. hitches. Even Chicago’s industrial wasteland takes on a transformative, magical atmosphere. Jeunet is a director who, like Gilliam, Dante, Burton and Verbinski, is often only so many paces away from creating live action cartoons (and for some of those, the overlap has at times been overt). While most of these filmmakers are quite upfront about their skewed worldviews, Jeunet is particularly partial to presenting his awry vision in the apparel of idiosyncratic frivolity concealing darker more disturbing forces within. Not usually enough to overwhelm (although Lost Children gets close at times) but enough to catch the darkness unmistakably.


It’s true that there is an air of familiarity about the general circumstance of Spivet. The child on a quest in an exaggerated environment recalls the likes of North, while the narration brings to mind the likes of Babe, Amélie and Pushing Daisies (and even Raising Arizona, in the way the Jeunet leads us to visual punchlines). Reif Larsen’s list of potential adaptors included Wes Anderson, and it would be easy to picture. Anderson too likes his visual asides and punctuation points, and Spivet is replete with them. I’m doubtful that he would have embraced the workings of the young inventor’s mind as wholly, however.  And when we see T.S. debate the different routes to answer the telephone it summons the heightened planning sequences beloved by Edgar Wright. Jeunet approach seems like a sure fit; the visual representations that reflect the book’s layout (about two-thirds of it include some form of drawing, T.S.’s depiction, ordering and mapping of his environment) are seamless and complementary.


10 year-old T.S. Spivet (Kyle Catlett) is a precocious prodigy with particular abilities in the scientific field. Even his teacher takes issue with his towering intelligence (“You think you’re smarter than everyone else, don’t you?” he remonstrates as T.S. proffers a copy of Discover magazine in which his essay has been printed). He lives on the Montana Copper Top ranch with his taciturn cowboy dad (the ever-excellent Callum Keith Rennie), beetle-studying mum (Helena Bonham Carter, taking a break from Burton wackiness and diving into Jeunet wackiness) and beauty pageant-obsessed sister Gracie (Niamh Wilson). His monozygotic twin brother Layton (Jakob Davies) the apple of his rugged outdoor-loving father’s eye, died in a shooting accident for which T.S. blames himself. T.S. set himself the task of finding the key to perpetual motion (“Such a machine defies the laws of the universe”) and when he learns that the Smithsonian museum has awarded him the Spencer Baird Award for his perpetual motion machine he decides to travel cross-country to receive it, leaving his self-involved parents and sister behind.


It’s fair to say the first two-thirds of Spivet are the superior sequences; the introduction to T.S.’s farm and family, and then the journey itself. He travels first by train, ingeniously encouraging it to stop for him by painting the signal light red with a marker. Then he then hitchhikes the final leg (Jeunet’s world is one where a boy may travel without fear, certainly of the predatory variety). On the way, T.S. meets Jeunet’s actor talisman Dominique Pinon (as rail yard teller of tall tales Two Cloud) and veteran Ricky (Julian Richings), who offers offhand caustic moment comments (“Join the army, see the world, meet interesting people and kill them”); Jeunet delights in these kinds of moments.


When T.S. arrives to take his prize, the picture embarks on a less interesting detour as Judy Davis’ flinty G.H. Jibsen sees T.S. as her ticket to fame and glory; he is subject to inconclusive tests (“Thank you for evaluating my brain, Judy”) and put on television. If this is sometimes bumpy going, fortunately it does not lessen the impact of T.S.’s speech in which he gives an account of the death of his brother (the first such we have heard). He discards discussion of his invention during the preamble; we learn that it will last 400 years, so it isn’t really a perpetual motion device. When he appears on a TV chat show he even offers a sop to the capitalists, claiming that, even though a much bigger machine could indeed power the studio, the outlay on light bulbs would still represent a significant cost.  Catlett has the slightly the nerdy confidence of a young(er) Jesse Eisenberg and he isn’t always nuanced in his delivery, but he’s genuine and restrained in the scene where he explains his brother’s demise to the rapt audience and then again later when his mother informs him it wasn’t his fault, “What happened just happened” (Carter is also strong here, dropping the peculiarities that have inhabited her post-Burton career).


The speech encapsulates the film’s twin themes of immortality and loss, expressing with appreciable subtlety that T.S.’s invention is a means to repair his world after the loss of his brother, through the only means he knows how (scientific application). In other hands (those of Chris Columbus, say) lines like “Thank you for taking care of me, you’re one of the best families in the world” could infest the film like sugary syrup, but T.S. gives off the air of the even-handed, slightly reserved boffin; offputtingly obsessive and aloof to many, T.S. balances this with unlikely empathy and insight. Jeunet ensures that less is more where emotions are concerned; his reconciliation with his mother is disarmingly brief, before it’s time to move on, and his father (“Can’t get horse shit from a cricket”) needs only give him a piggyback (well, that and punch TV presenter Roy’s – Rick Mercer – lights out) to show how much he cares but can’t normaly express.


While it’s the case that one is frequently reminded of a junior Amélie, with the flights of fantasy (Inside Gracie’s Cortex is particularly wonderful, as is the moment where faithful hound Tapioca says farewell while not taking his eyes off the TV), analyses of the ways of the world from its protagonist’s point of view (fake and genuine smiles, his observance of how his “Day and night” parents touched hands in the hallway “as if secretly exchanging a few seeds”), and bittersweet flamboyance, Jeunet’s film about “the Leonardo of Montana” offers much to enjoy on its own merits. Jeunet should probably trying stretching himself a bit, though, even within his own boundaries, if he is to avoid the much maligned fate of Tim Burton (playing in a well dug sandpit and unearthing nothing new).



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…

Life is like a box of timelines. You feel me?

Russian Doll Season One
(SPOILERS) It feels like loading the dice to proclaim something necessarily better because it’s female-driven, but that’s the tack The Hollywood Reporter took with its effusive review of Russian Doll, suggesting “although Nadia goes on a similar journey of self-discovery to Bill Murray’s hackneyed reporter in Groundhog Day, the fact that the show was created, written by and stars women means that it offers up a different, less exploitative and far more thoughtful angle” (than the predominately male-centric entries in the sub-genre). Which rather sounds like Rosie Knight changing the facts to fit her argument. And ironic, given star Natasha Lyonne has gone out of her way to stress the show’s inclusive message. Russian Dollis good, but the suggestion that “unlike its predecessors (it) provides a thoughtfulness, authenticity and honesty which makes it inevitable end (sic) all the more powerful” is cobblers.

We’re not owners here, Karen. We’re just passing through.

Out of Africa (1985)
I did not warm to Out of Africa on my initial viewing, which would probably have been a few years after its theatrical release. It was exactly as the publicity warned, said my cynical side; a shallow-yet-bloated, awards-baiting epic romance. This was little more than a well-dressed period chick flick, the allure of which was easily explained by its lovingly photographed exotic vistas and Robert Redford rehearsing a soothing Timotei advert on Meryl Streep’s distressed locks. That it took Best Picture only seemed like confirmation of it as all-surface and no substance. So, on revisiting the film, I was curious to see if my tastes had “matured” or if it deserved that dismissal. 

Mountains are old, but they're still green.

Roma (2018)
(SPOILERS) Roma is a critics' darling and a shoe-in for Best Foreign Film Oscar, with the potential to take the big prize to boot, but it left me profoundly indifferent, its elusive majesty remaining determinedly out of reach. Perhaps that's down to generally spurning autobiographical nostalgia fests – complete with 65mm widescreen black and white, so it's quite clear to viewers that the director’s childhood reverie equates to the classics of old – or maybe the elliptical characterisation just didn't grab me, but Alfonso Cuarón's latest amounts to little more than a sliver of substance beneath all that style.

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…

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…

We’re looking for a bug no one’s seen before. Some kind of smart bug.

Starship Troopers (1997)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven’s sci-fi trio of Robocop, Total Recall and Starship Troopers are frequently claimed to be unrivalled in their genre, but it’s really only the first of them that entirely attains that rarefied level. Discussion and praise of Starship Troopers is generally prefaced by noting that great swathes of people – including critics and cast members – were too stupid to realise it was a satire. This is a bit of a Fight Club one, certainly for anyone from the UK (Verhoeven commented “The English got it though. I remember coming out of Heathrow and seeing the posters, which were great. They were just stupid lines about war from the movie. I thought, ‘Finally someone knows how to promote this.’”) who needed no kind of steer to recognise what the director was doing. And what he does, he does splendidly, even if, at times, I’m not sure he entirely sustains a 129-minute movie, since, while both camp and OTT, Starship Troopers is simultaneously required t…

Even after a stake was driven through its heart, there’s still interest.

Prediction 2019 Oscars
Shockingly, as in I’m usually much further behind, I’ve missed out on only one of this year’s Best Picture nominees– Vice isn’t yet my vice, it seems – in what is being suggested, with some justification, as a difficult year to call. That might make for must-see appeal, if anyone actually cared about the movies jostling for pole position. If it were between Black Panther and Bohemian Rhapsody (if they were even sufficiently up to snuff to deserve a nod in the first place), there might be a strange fascination, but Joe Public don’t care about Roma, underlined by it being on Netflix and stillconspicuously avoided by subscribers (if it were otherwise, they’d be crowing about viewing figures; it’s no Bird Box, that’s for sure).

Now we're all wanted by the CIA. Awesome.

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (2015)
(SPOILERS) There’s a groundswell of opinion that Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation is the best in near 20-year movie franchise. I’m not sure I’d go quite that far, but only because this latest instalment and its two predecessors have maintained such a consistently high standard it’s difficult to pick between them. III featured a superior villain and an emotional through line with real stakes. Ghost Protocol dazzled with its giddily constructed set pieces and pacing. Christopher McQuarrie’s fifth entry has the virtue of a very solid script, one that expertly navigates the kind of twists and intrigue one expects from a spy franchise. It also shows off his talent as a director; McQuarrie’s not one for stylistic flourish, but he makes up for this with diligence and precision. Best of all, he may have delivered the series’ best character in Rebecca Ferguson’s Ilsa Faust (admittedly, in a quintet that makes a virtue of pared down motivation and absen…

Yeah, she loused up one of the five best days of your life.

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
(SPOILERS) The zeitgeist Best Picture Oscar winner is prone to falling from grace like no other. Often, they’re films with notable acting performances but themes that tend to appear antiquated or even slightly offensive in hindsight. Few extol the virtues of American Beauty the way they did twenty years ago, and Kramer vs. Kramer isn’t quite seen as exemplifying a sensitive and balanced examination of the fallout of divorce on children and their parents the way it was forty years previously. It remains a compelling film for the performances, but it’s difficult not to view it, despite the ameliorating effect of Meryl Streep (an effect she had to struggle to exert), as a vanity project of its star, and one that doesn’t do him any favours with hindsight and behind-the-scenes knowledge.