We all want stuff. It doesn’t mean we’re all douchebags.

While We’re Young

(2014)

(SPOILERS) I run a bit lukewarm on Noah Baumbach’s films. They tend to occupy a curiously diffident space, somewhere between sub-Woody Allen New York quirk and the kind of rather pedestrian, broader subject matter that fits easily into a much less indie, much more overtly Hollywood approach – just with slight tweaks to tone and casting. While We’re Young is very much of this ilk, hanging a plot concerning artistic expression that might have been lifted from Crimes and Misdemeanours from the peg of a middle-aged couple wary of their inexorable transition from youth.

As such, there’s nothing very special here, aside from the performances. Even then, Ben Stiller’s Josh is recognisably Ben Stiller, the beta-male goofball we know so well from his major Hollywood roles, just a bit less off-the-wall and with fewer (a few fewer) pratfalls. His ensnarement into being flattered, and feeling validated/rejuvenated, by a young pretender (Jamie, Adam Driver) to his throne of eminent documentary maker is entirely predictable. Equally so that his ego must be brought crashing down when he discovers this usurper has used him to further his own career (using to him to hook up with Josh’s father-in-law, the inestimable Charles Grodin). There is consequent fallout on Josh’s relationship with wife Cornelia (Naomi Watts), and their ties with friends and recent parents Adam Horovitz and Maria Dizzia. Rather insultingly, Baumbach seems to be saying that such midlife restlessness can simply be cured by having a child, filling a gap of rather facile ennui.

Jamie, with his less culpable wife Darby (Amanda Seyfried, very good) in tow, is a horrible hipster, a fellow who listens only to LPs and watches movies only on videotape. Good as Driver is, his character is a crude, Machiavellian, sociopathic caricature of a hipster, “It’s like he saw a sincere person and he’s been imitating him ever since” complains Josh. But then he concludes “He’s not evil. He’s just young”, as if Baumbach has resolved, shaking his head, that later generations just cannot be understood and so must be consigned to a moral vacuum.

En route to this point, we encounter numerous faintly tiresome clichés of the mid-life crisis drama. Vignettes include couple-swapping (well, almost), drug-taking (ayahuasca), dancing to hip-hop and rote cod-psychology (Josh has been using his movie – a decade in the making – as an excuse not to do anything with his life, including having children). The amusing part is, the boring movie Josh is making actually sounds much more interesting than the one Baumbach has made, with it’s discussion of military interests creating the Internet as a part of an overall strategy (“Josh, you know, the whole world isn’t a conspiracy against you” levels Cornelia at one point). Albeit, this is all couched within a self-consciously mocking-yet-reverent milieu of pseudo-intellectual New Yorkers.

Worth seeing for Grodin (“You’ve made a six-and-a-half-hour film that feels like its seven hours too long”) and the players generally, but Baumbach’s too young (yes, he is) to descend into this kind of self-indulgent navel-gazing, particularly when he isn’t half as witty or insightful as the peak-period Woody he’s desperately aping.

Comments

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

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.

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

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’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.

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.

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).

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.

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog