Skip to main content

I am loved and respected by all who know me... slightly.

Mortdecai
(2015)

David Koepp’s (very loose) film adaptation of the first of Kyril Bonfiglioli’s novels concerning louche art dealer Charlie Mortdecai arrived in January to resounding disdain. Much of this was directed at star Johnny Depp, whose whacky voices/ wigs/make-up schtick is now being judged as a full-blown irritant by even his most charitable critics.  While I’m not immune to a sense of fatigue at his determined mugging, I’ve yet to succumb to thermal death point; I do, actually still find him entertaining for the most part. So with that caveat, for the most part I found his latest crazy creation, Charlie Mortdecai, entertaining, as determinedly indulgent as his performance is. The real problem with Mortdecai is that it comes courtesy of a director lacking real comic flair. The movie is fitfully as engaging and lively as it desperately wants to be – and by no means the atrocity that has been claimed – but Koepp continually gives off the air of someone who has studied how to make a crazy comedy caper, and never as one to whom it comes naturally.


Koepp, from a screenplay by Eric Aronson, seems to be aiming for something of the effortlessly oddball tone of Wes Anderson (Jeff Goldblum even appears, for all of three minutes), but you can’t learn how to be Wes Anderson. Either you’re a Wes or you aren’t (Depp was reportedly considering the M Gustav role in Grand Budapest Hotel at one point). I could imagine, say, Michael Lehmann lending this an appropriately offbeat tone, but Koepp is all at sea. I’d attributed the issues with his last comedy Ghost Town, to be more down to Ricky Gervais as leading man, but Koepp’s funny bone malaise seems more fundamental. If you’re trying too hard, you end up looking desperate. He’s a solid, serviceable director (Stir of Echoes and Premium Rush are particularly strong examples), and even with a bit of a fizzle (Depp starrer Secret Window), he can generally nail tone, but the prevailing lack of comedy on his screenwriting resumé, and his being someone who can adapt Dan Brown with a straight face, ought to have been warning signs.


As such, I wouldn’t put the failings of Mortdecai down to the determined anglophilia of its lead actor and director; there’s no reason American filmmakers shouldn’t go British any more than there is for not casting Brits as the entire superhero populace of the States (so it often seems). And Depp can do a funny British accent in his sleep. No, I think the problem is these kind of pictures are much harder than they appear (stolen paintings turned into divine farce got Anderson multiple Oscar nominations for Grand Budapest Hotel, but who has any fondness for Michael Hoffman’s broad-as-broad remake of Gambit?) There’s also the little detail that the source material isn’t really that hot.


Bonfiglioli’s novels have been compared in prose style and sense of humour to PG Wodehouse, and he was so indebted (quite understandably) that he couldn’t resist namedropping the author in his Charlie Mortdecai novels. For Bertie Wooster transpose Charlie Mortdecai, and for Jeeves replace Jock (Strapp, Paul Bettany). It’s true that Bonfiglioli has an exuberant, jocular style, but in content he couldn’t diverge more extremely from his authorial hero. The Mortdecai novels are the vulgarian’s version of Wodehouse, Carry On Wodehouse, if you will, replete with a steady stream of sexual innuendo, bodily function gags and a pastiche approach to American crime fiction (the last bit isn’t Wodehouseian, but one could quite imagine a Carry On Up the Big Easy).


If nothing else, this highlights why Wodehouse’s style is so distinctive and remains so seminal; it isn’t so much that his humour is sophisticated or that his plotting is incredible (if you’ve read one Wodehouse novel, you pretty much know how they go). It’s that the language is so pleasurably lyrical, almost musical, and the world he creates is entirely heightened and untouched by anything approaching everyday problems (less still anything as undignified as sex). Bonfiglioli could mimic the style, but then peppering the content with fart jokes, debauchery and lustiness plays to the cheap seats. The results tend towards the sadly adolescent (by comparison and contrast, Douglas Adams steered his love of Wodehouse into the realm of science fiction, and so was able to hook a similar flair for language to material that brought out, rather than curtailed, the big ideas he was playing with). The lowbrow humour operates as a crutch, rather than an effective contrast.


Which isn’t to say I don’t enjoy a good fart gag. But it needs to be employed with judiciously. Too frequently, Mortdecai strays into the field of the BBC’s godawful recent Blandings adaption, which seemed almost perversely at odds with everything that made Wodehouse’ writing so glorious. Mortdecai doesn’t actually shame its source material, of course; indeed, one of its problems that it’s too deferential.


The plot is convoluted, but not in an involving manner and, since this isn’t a full-blown parody of the Mike Myers variety, Aronson is unable to use this to its advantage. Numerous elements survive from the book, just as many more are discarded: the stolen Goya painting (and where it is hidden), the sale of the Rolls, Inspector Martland (as with Charlie, granted a photogenic makeover in the form of Ewan McGregor, but they retain their mutual contempt), the globetrotting.


Others are changed or invented. The Russians are new, while Johanna’s character is effectively substituted for Georgina (Olivia Munn), the nymphomaniac daughter of Krampf (Jeff Goldblum). Johanna (Gwyneth Paltrow) is ready and wed to Charlie when we first meet her (this doesn’t happen until the second novel). Her disapproval of Charlie’s moustache is, of course, a homage to Jeeves’ frequent dismay with Bertie’s clueless fashion choices (which, at one point, include a liperpillar).


Mortdecai is more successful during the first half, before it’s expected to start solving its ungainly plot. It’s not as if Koepp can’t construct a set piece efficiently. Rather, they just don’t have the lightness of touch that could make them fly. There are some good laughs to be had, of course; Charlie trying to persuade Martland to eat some especially stinky cheese, his “sympathetic gag reflex” in response to the effect his moustache has on Johanna, a visit to Spinoza (Paul Whitehouse, continuing his best pal-dom with Depp) at the garage and ending much as it does in the novel, an elaborate car chase that finds Charlie, Jock and Emil (Jonny Pasvolsky) swappng places as it progresses, a meeting with Sir Graham (Michael Culkin) that sees Charlie pinned against a lift wall (“What are you hiding in your belly?”). And capture by the Russians, led by Banshee’s Ulrich Thomson (asked to Open your balls” Charlie responds, “I shan’t! What does that even mean?”)


The shift to America (“A terribly vulgar place called Los Angeles, apparently located in the far west colonies”) might have been ripe for laughs, but somehow the post-Imperial public school superiority Charlie wields feels terribly laboured  (it was dated when Bonfiglioli was offering it in the ‘70s) The country-hopping is accompanied by garishly-titled transitions that highlight Koepp’s wanting sense of tone. He has something broad so he thinks the only way to go is to make everything broad. In this regard, check out, or avoid, the score by Mark Ronson and Geoff Zanelli, which is far too big and intrusive, trying to breezily proclaim “THIS IS FUNNY!” (to be fair, the soundtrack is probably quite a good listen in isolation).


What Mortdecai highlights most effectively is the deceptively light tough Mike Myers and Jay Roach brought to Austin Powers. There, Myers knew how to revel in the crudity in a more consistently creative and centralised manner. Probably because he took his cues from the Pink Panther series (as much as Bonds), which at their best knew how to extend a set piece or bit of business to the point where their ridiculousness becomes sublime. Probably also because he built his movies around extended sketches. 


Mortdecai occasionally approaches such inspired territory; the aforementioned car chase has a touch of dementedly delightful slapstick, and a later chase finds a food poisoned Jock throwing up over a pursuing car’s windscreen (“Questionable attack, Jock. Spirited, though”). However, too often half a joke is flourished without the zest to make the whole thing sing (a climactic fight at an auction, where a crate is dropped on Charlie, only to collapse around him, leaving him unscathed, is fine, but the rest of the sequence is forgettable).


Depending on your tolerance levels, its Depp who ultimately makes this passable or kills it. For the most part Mortdecai’s double act with Jock is every bit as effective as it is on the page. Bettany continually steals the show as Jock, and if Charlie’s capacity for injuring him is overcooked, it does result in an amusing sequence where his “manservant and thug” is about to lose a finger in Charlie’s stead. Jock has been imbued with an “enviable rate of sexual intercourse” here, probably considered more palatable than his Shirley Temple fixation from the novels.


More lines groan or fall flat (“I had no idea I was so deep in her majesty’s hole”), than hit the spot (“The file was fat, and well handled, like a Welsh barmaid”), but enough do carry to make this easier viewing than the majority of mainstream studio comedies. By this point, there is little discernable difference between what Depp is doing with a Charlie Mortdecai and what Myers does (used to do?) with his comic personas, except the latter is a control freak and Depp clearly isn’t. Lines like “Oh, you pretended to be gentle but you weren’t” or “It made me feel dirty” are all down to Depp’s delivery; this is the closest he has come to a Clouseau or Austin Powers, but he really needed a more sympathetic director.


There’s a rich vein to be tapped in cowardly, aloof and disdainful characters, and Depp relishes hiding under tables and referencing having children as an “odious thought” (he’s been actively into undercutting classic heroes since at least Sleepy Hollow), or insulting a Russian henchman (“Your mother and father only knew each other for a day, and money changed hands”).


I don’t think Depp was going for the Terry-Thomas thing further than the gap tooth visual cue (wisely, he didn’t have a hope in hell of coming close). As for the rest of his appearance, the moustache obsession isn’t nearly as funny as everyone clearly thinks it is, but even that has the odd moment; getting in a lift surrounded by other hirsute types, and comparing notes with Emil (“I was just admiring your Franz Joseph”).


The supporting cast are mostly fine. The likes of Michael Culkin, Whitehouse and Goldblum (it’s amusing to see Goldblum being weird in a “straight” role, just by being Goldblum, acting against Depp who can only be weird by dressing up in an overpowering character suit) are good value. McGregor is badly miscast. He’s the straight man, but he isn’t a natural with comedy, or with RP delivery come to that. It renders the picture lopsided; he’s at his least damaging playing spurned devotee to Johanna.


Paltrow probably nurses more ill feeling than Deep these days, although I can’t say I’ve closely followed all the reasons she’s now apparently a terrible person. She’s blessed with good comic timing, and is entirely delectable throughout (particularly in a policeman’s helmet and scarf). It says a lot for her that she’s more than able to hold her own with pronounced screen hogs like Depp and Downey Jr, particularly in roles that are intrinsically less dazzling. Her best scene comes with Michael Byrne’s Duke, keen to show her what he has in the lavatory (“I’ve been trying to get rid of her, but she’s so damned attractive”).


Mortdecai is all set to rank near the top of many a “Worst of 2015” lists, but it doesn’t really deserve such opprobrium (any more than Myers’ slated The Love Guru did). It’s patchy, sure (it’s never going to be rediscovered as cult movie the way, say, Hudson Hawk has been) and Koepp should definitely stick to thrillers in future (its safe to say there won’t be any further Charlie Mortdecai movies, at least not with Depp or in the next decade or two), but this is probably as about as good a Kyril Bonfiglioli adaptation as could be hoped for, short of drastically upgrading the source material.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

So the devil's child will rise from the world of politics.

The Omen (1976) (SPOILERS) The coming of the Antichrist is an evergreen; his incarnation, or the reveal thereof, is always just round the corner, and he can always be definitively identified in any given age through a spot of judiciously subjective interpretation of The Book of Revelation , or Nostradamus. Probably nothing did more for the subject in the current era, in terms of making it part of popular culture, than The Omen . That’s irrespective of the movie’s quality, of course. Which, it has to be admitted, is not on the same level as earlier demonic forebears Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist .

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.

I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

They Live * (1988) (SPOILERS) Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of They Live – I was a big fan of most things Carpenter at the time of its release – but the manner in which its reputation as a prophecy of (or insight into) “the way things are” has grown is a touch out of proportion with the picture’s relatively modest merits. Indeed, its feting rests almost entirely on the admittedly bravura sequence in which WWF-star-turned-movie-actor Roddy Piper, under the influence of a pair of sunglasses, first witnesses the pervasive influence of aliens among us who are sucking mankind dry. That, and the ludicrously genius sequence in which Roddy, full of transformative fervour, attempts to convince Keith David to don said sunglasses, for his own good. They Live should definitely be viewed by all, for their own good, but it’s only fair to point out that it doesn’t have the consistency of John Carpenter at his very, very best. Nada : I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas