Skip to main content

Everyone's gotta do the Shimmy Shimmy Ya.

Lost River
(2014)

(SPOILERS) If more actors than one might expect turn out to be competent directors, it’s probably because the majority of them have very conservative ambitions in the field. The ones with the virtuosity of, say, Mel Gibson are few and far between. Much more common is the unfussy, unadorned approach of a Clint or a (Sir) Dickie (albeit less prolific in output). Those who attempt overt artistic or personal statements set themselves up for a fall, which is where the latest first-timer, Ryan Gosling, comes in. Lost River has been thoroughly lambasted, and it has to be said that it isn’t very good.


But hey, at least Gosling didn’t go down the route of respectable period piece or biopic (see Russell Crowe, Angelina Jolie, etc.) Lost River is determinedly weird, in the overt way a student filmmaker full of ideas but with little self-control is (hence the multi-hyphenate director-writer-producer). Whether he’ll be a one-time only, defeated by pillorying the way Johnny Depp was with The Brave, or even Charles Laughton, who made a classic but was defeated by its reception, remains to be seen. Lost River feels like a movie made from watching the works of other, better filmmakers (David Lynch, Nicolas Winding Refn, Terry Gilliam, all great touchstones to have) but without a sufficient clarity on what it wants to be. Other than weird.


Because it’s certainly that, just not in a terribly interesting way. The English guy off Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (the majority of the leads are British playing American, for no tangible reason, at least not in a “best person for the part” sense), Iain De Caestecker is Bones, who lives with mum Billy (Christina Hendricks) in a derelict part of Detroit. He salvages scrap metal, while she takes a weird stage act job from a predatory bank manager (Ben Mendelsohn, surprisingly playing a wanker, one with only the one good ear, which at least marks him out from all the other wankers he plays) in order to make the mortgage repayments to stop their house from being pulled down. 


Also in the mix are Matt Smith’s imaginatively named Bully, a psychopath who terrorises the rundown locale, and Rat (Saoirise Ronan), Bones’ kind-of romantic interest who lives with her gran and owns a rat (called Nick, which makes sense, as Nick would be a silly name for a girl).


It’s a picture of two halves, the more interesting of which is the peculiar club scene Billy becomes involved in. Her first visit sees her witness a Grand Guignol performance murder to an ecstatic audience, and soon she is peeling of her face to rapturous applause (do you think this might be Gosling’s commentary on the 99% addicted to TV and the Internet, escaping their rum lots, maybe? Hmmmm?) The star performer Cat (Eva Mendes, who isn’t, but is Gosling’s paramour) introduces Billy to the basement shows, where she is sealed in a plastic body shell while a paying audience (guess who that will be) is free to behave as they will. This half-light world has the colour scheme of a Refn film and the surrealism and sexual fetishism of Lynch (think Blue Velvet) but what it lacks is any real sensibility beyond a will to odd. Lynch’s twisted sense of humour marbles his work, but Gosling is disappointingly po-faced.


Bones is involved in a different kind of escapism, one that summons the fantasising protagonists of Gilliam’s The Fisher King and Tideland; Rat informs him a nearby town was flooded to build a reservoir, and that a curse can be lifted by capturing a beast from its depths. Gosling fails to elicit any interest in this plotline, however. Indeed, the only aspect that passes mention is how glaringly unsuited Smith is to the “villain” role, pratting about, shouting like a gumby, and, in a particularly unpleasant sequence, decapitating a rat (that’s Nick, not Rat).


Tonally the picture lurches from twee sentimentalism (the TV shows suggest Jean Pierre Jeunet) to threats of violence and bloodshed (that would Refn again), without any guiding sensibility to bind them. Mainly though, Gosing’s story just isn’t any cop. If he had a really good one, he might make something interesting at some point, as there are more than enough moments and images here to suggest someone with far more potential than a purveyor of personality-free period pics or adapted works. If he’s going to be an indulgent filmmaker, though, he needs to work on why people should indulge him (even if that amounts to the scars from serving as a Mouseketeer). With the likes of Gilliam and Lynch, no one ever has to ask that question.


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

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.