Skip to main content

The Englishman will die.

Eddie the Eagle
(2016)

Eddie the Eagle could easily have been as embarrassing as his presence was to the British Olympic team, had it been allowed to turn into a Norman Wisdom-esque, maximum gurning, comedy prat stick-tacular. Eddie would probably even have got the girl at the end. Which isn’t to say the movie has much in the way of fidelity to the facts (the real Michael Edwards said it was about 5% accurate), or that it doesn’t wallow in superficially conjured, cloying life-affirmation, but Dexter Fletcher’s third big screen directorial jaunt mostly surmounts the snares that come with the territory, thanks to a supremely winning and dedicated performance from Taron Egerton, one that makes you care about a real-life caricature.


The physical transformation is impressive enough; Egerton, the latest handsome young British export everyone wants for their next project, becomes a bit of a sight, all protruding jaw, ungainly physique and frightful whiskers. More than that, though, he fills in and adds substance to the broad strokes that are Simon Kelton and Sean Macaulay’s screenplay; I can only imagine how enfeebled this would have been with the rumoured Rupert Grint in the lead. Like a proper Rocky story, but by way of a very British loser, the writers give Eddie an even bigger mountain to climb than the real Eddie, in their “based on a true story”, and have him hampered at every turn by unsympathetic officials (personified by a magnificently snobby, elitist Tim McInnerny), advancing by dint of sheer doggedness and good-natured gumption.


It’s a classic aspirational, against-the-odds tale, seen in the same week as Zootropolis/ Zootopia/ Zoomania. Otherwise disparate in style and content, both find their protagonists’ parents and authority figures attempting to divert their heroes from the path to fulfilment (the makers tactfully leave out that Eddie failed to qualify for the ‘94 and ’98 Olympics because the spoil-sport committee raised qualification standards). Of course, Judy Hopps is actually really good at what she does, while Eddie gets points simply for showing up.


And being a character. We love a character, and so did the crowds and media at the ’88 Winter Olympics. The part about disgruntled team mates objecting to his stealing their thunder is dead-on, but Eddie the Eagle successfully pulls the trick of making Eddie both a clumsy, hapless, hopeless joke and a figure emblematic of purity of motive and intent. If that’s sentimental, well, it works.


Hugh Jackman’s (fictional; Eddie was actually trained by a couple of Americans) inebriated trainer is an unreconstituted cliché, and his plotline of redemption by way of a Chris Walken cameo is rather superfluous. Yet he has chemistry with Egerton, and the picture very much needed his type of mentor/ sounding board. Keith Allen and Jo Hartley are likewise integral as Eddie’s parents, inhabiting traditionally furnished roles of dissuasive dad and supporting mum. Fletcher, who sneaks in a cameo for his old Press Gang cohort Paul Reynolds… as a reporter… is sensible enough to let keep the performances front-and-centre, but knows exactly how to portray the vertiginous thrill of the jump, and only really shows off once, with a CGI-assisted Jackman 90-foot plunge.


Matthew Margeson (this being a Matthew Vaughn production, he previously co-wrote the Kingsman score) provides a jolly, upbeat ‘80s-styled synth soundtrack, exactly what you’d expect of Chariots of Fire if it accompanied a plasterer by trade. Which rather underlines that you’d be impossibly grouchy not to be pulled along by the picture, even as you recognise its posing represents an all-too familiar shorthand (and thus guaranteed export market) for the British film industry. Egerton is magnificent though, and is largely responsible for making Eddie the Eagle soar. A bit of a shame he’s soon going to be wasting his time on Robin Hood: Origins nonsense, then.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for