Skip to main content

I should never have tried to pull your head off.

Frank
(2014)

The appeal of Frank Sidebottom passed me by, which may be just as well, as Jon Ronson’s sort-of fictionalised memoir of his time with Frank’s band retains the iconic head of Mr Sidebottom but otherwise ploughs its own distinct furrow. An amusing but melancholic charting of an unpronounceably-named band that didn’t really want to make it big, but for the intervention of one Ronson-stand-in keyboard player, sequestered because he can play three notes, Frank is an affectionate musing on the shortcomings, indulgences, excesses and banalities of the creative urge.


Frank was co-written by Ronson and Peter Straughan. The latter has earned a dazzling rep of late, after starting out in the adaptation game with mixed results. There was How to Lose Friends & Alienate People, and the brave (or foolhardy) attempt to turn Ronson’s brilliant gonzo trip into the weird The Men Who Stare at Goats into a workable narrative. He then ran aground slightly (The Debt) before achieving the impossible and finessing a cherishable big screen Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Right now, he’s receiving plaudits for the (ultimate?) BBC heritage adaptation Wolf Hall and has a fictionalised version of doc Our Brand is Crisis and an (another!) adaptation, The Teleport Accident, on the way. In short, he’s in demand.


Ronson has long been a favourite journo. For a start, he is clearly fascinated by all sorts of peculiar subject matter (way back with Channel 4’s For The Love Of…), which he investigates with an ironic air, one part intent on debunking and one part non-committal. He clearly sees the antic as ever present in life, even if he is less willing to entertain its most rabbit hole-dwelling recesses (seeking out overt eccentrics and whack jobs to bear witness to fringe ideas, ones one is top-heavy with doubt about in the first place, quickly becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in throwing out the baby with the bath water). But it’s always fun to read or watch or listen to his process, crossing from scepticism to doubt and then retreating to the safety of the shore once more. I’m doubtful that Ronson is a great original storyteller, however. His DVD commentary comment about realising he didn’t have to stick to the facts of “Jon’s” feelings, but rather could have him turn to the dark side, becoming seduced by the idea of fame, is particularly revealing in this regard. Ronson’s creative boundaries may be as inhibited as they were when he attempted to become a songsmith, but he’s completely in his element when inserting himself into real life madness.


Frank finds Jon hitching a ride to an Irish cabin with band Soronprfbs, where they are ostensibly set to make an album. They actually spend most of their time dilletanting in the name of artistic expression and discovery, at the behest of Terror of the Autons-looking Frank (Michael Fassbender, showing he’s a good sport and a funny guy; it would be nice to see his face too in a comedy next time). Jon’s friend in all this is suicidal Don (Scoot McNairy; what is it with actors from Killing Them Softly washing up in Britain?). His archenemy is Theremin-wielding Clara (Maggie Gyllenhaal). There’s also a drummer (Carla Azar as Nana) and a bass guitarist (Francois Civil as Baraque).


First impressions suggest Clara is a complete bitch to poor unassuming Jon (Gleeson does a decent not-quite-Ronson). But, as he becomes ever more hoisted by his own petard, drinking the sub-Jim Morrison Kool Aid of Frank and warming to ideas of creative worth above his meagre station, we begin to realise her brittle dismissiveness of Jon (“Someone needs to punch you in the face”) and protectiveness of Frank may have a point. There are inevitable deaths, confrontations and dalliances before the band end up – through Jon’s illicit promotion – at the SXSW festival. Where all hell breaks loose.


Lenny Abrahamson, aided by James Mather’s cinematography, has directed an exquisite looking movie, belying completely any presumption that this would be quirky, rough-and-ready production. Indeed, despite the conceit of its premise – a man who never takes his fake head off (“I have a certificate”) – Frank is a remarkably well-observed and surprisingly low-key exploration of (Ronson’s favourite subject) madness and invention, and the ways in which they attract and repel. Like many creatives, Frank doesn’t need to assemble acolytes; they just congregate around him, sitting in awe at his charismatic feet. In some ways Jon is the cruellest character here. Jon and Peter are unflinching in their takedown of someone with little talent beyond hitting those three notes and a yen for the undeserved spotlight.


The actual introductory band song is pretty good in a stream-of-consciousness, random, “got a good beat” way (although Ronson and Straughan are way off if they think it sounds like nothing anyone has heard before). The picture is frequently very funny, although rarely laugh-out-loud; this is comedy of observation and embarrassment. From Frank’s pseudish, gibberish attempts to encourage the band to discover themselves, to his most likable song ever (Jon attempts to make it more likable still), to the inevitable crash-and-burn on stage, Frank walks a thin line between tragedy and hilarity.


It doesn’t all quite work. The onscreen Tweeting is a too-familiar device, and, with the YouTube naivety, comes across as a fogeyish take on new technology (a hangover from originally setting this during the ‘80s?) Still, Frank is insightful, amusing, and steeped in Ronson-esque irony. Perhaps the real reason he blanched at turning “himself” into a fame-seeking opportunist is because deep down Ronson recognised a little bit of himself in that “Jon”? 





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

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.

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.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

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

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.