Skip to main content

Uncommonly capacious rump on the cherub.

Mr. Turner
(2014)

Perhaps Mike Leigh’s latest period picture (three of his last six films have strated from the present day) is indicative of a director who is increasingly comfortable with casting his net wider for material as he approaches his dotage. Perhaps. Mr. Turner, a rambling, unfocussed account of the last third of the artist’s life, is readily identifiable as a Leigh picture, only with its patronising treatment of working class characters slightly lidded under the mores and speech of more than a century and a half hence.


I invariably enjoy Leigh’s films, but his tendency to caricature has always been a bugbear, along with his appetite for letting sentiment swell forth from the melodrama. Here, we see the former exemplified in the one-note comedy nag that is Turner’s ex-mistress Sarah Danby (Leigh regular Ruth Wilson) and his inevitably crude dig at the upper classes as personified by Joshua McGuire’s twittish art critic John Ruskin. Nevertheless, the actual satire of art criticism in the Ruskin scenes is quite amusing; Turner’s interrogation of Ruskin, in which he asks him to which he is more partial, a steak and kidney or a steak and ham pie, makes for a highly satisfying demolishing. I guess my problem is, I’ve seen Leigh essay this sort of posh prat one too many times before.


Mr. Turner is frequently very playful, much of this down to Timothy Spall’s spirited (and Oscar nominated and Cannes Best Actor-winning) performance. Turner is frequently characterised by a collection of grunts or bronchial wheezes, registering unverbalised contempt or disagreement. However, when he does speak his language is invariably laugh-out-loud funny, a compendium of Dickensian erudition (“conundrous” indeed) and deadpan humour.


Cinematographer Dick Pope (or Poop, as he is also known), Leigh’s regular collaborator, furnishes the film with some stunning digital landscapes. If the interiors don’t really impress, except when lit from without, as a means to view a scene from a window, this is more than made up for by the vistas, and the creation of painterly light. Seaside Margate, sunlit rivers, cliffs, mountains, and skies are lensed in transportative fashion.


This is understandably the most exacting of Leigh’s films when it comes to the image itself, a means to appreciate the eye of the artist. Leigh is also careful to comment on the changing landscape of art. Mr. Turner takes in the mockery that greeted Turner’s transition from figurative to impressionistic, which involves his improvising foodstuffs as painterly materials. The satirised form of this, whereby the wealthy and foolish will buy anything masquerading as art is summed up by the stage recital “It is the latest thing in art, it looks like bits of old jam tart”. Such a response might be compared to modern artists like Hirst and Emin. There’s also Turner’s guarded reaction to the new medium of photography. Learning that colour remains a mystery, he mutters “And long may it remain so”.


The depiction of the artistic establishment is also effective, from miserablist debtor Haydon, played by Martin Savage (“Mr Haydon, you’re exceedingly tiresome”; Haydon later rejoinders “Do you not tire of boats and the fiery firmament?”), to Turner’s feud with Constable and the bizarre varnishing day in which artists would competitively apply finishing touches to their work.


But much of the picture concerns itself with Turner’s personal life. It’s not quite a portrait of the artist as a shagger, but his mistreatment of housekeeper Hanna Danby (Marion Bailey), niece of Sarah and his neglected sexual vassal, and affair with Sarah Booth (Marion Bailey) take up much of the running time.


The plus side of Leigh’s approach is that he eschews the typical biopic treadmill of “This happened then this happened” for a less precise, more anecdotal affair. The downside is that he cannot escape the structural curse of the biopic; we still finish up with him snuffing it. Mr. Turner is leisurely in the extreme, which isn’t a problem per se, but it has little glue holding its parts together, relying on the audience’s goodwill towards its characters. 


Individual scenes are nice-and-all (the encounter with Lesley Manville’s scientist Mary Somerville and her insights into magnetism, where she is given the appealing line "The universe is chaotic and you make us see it") a bawdy song sung at a respectable gathering and the gasps it gathers) but they’re indicative of the wilfully meandering decisions Leigh has made. He hasn’t so much unfurled a broad canvas as leapt about all over it with little clear design.


One review referenced how appropriate it was that Leigh didn’t win any big prizes (apart from Cannes, of course) for Mr. Turner, as both he and his subject were anti-establishment figures. That seems to be blindly ignoring Leigh’s frequent BAFTA wins and regular Oscar nominations. Not that the academy(s) are particularly prone to bestowing deserved prizes on the best and brightest, but the lack of garlands for Mr. Turner may be more of a recognition that a great performance and spellbinding cinematography don’t necessarily make a masterpiece.





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.

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

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.