Skip to main content

Maybe I'm cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs!

Love & Mercy
(2014)

Well here’s a surprise: a decent biopic. Probably because Love & Mercy isn’t slavishly fuelled by a sense of its own importance, and because it stresses the emotional life rather than the itemised history of its protagonist. Who is Brian Wilson, in his 20s and 40s, portrayed by Paul Dano and John Cusack respectively. Which was even more of a surprise, as I didn’t spend the duration possessed with the urge to thump Dano, who generally is just that kind of performer (and, I’m not a violent man, Mr Fawlty).


So the skill of Bill Pohlad (more usually a producer; this is his sophomore directing gig) is not to be underestimated in inducing me to empathise with Dano-Brian. He also pulls of the trick, with writers Oren Moverman (credited with cracking the story, he was in line to direct until realising Pohlad had such a clear vision, persuading him to step up to the megaphone) and Michael A Lerner, of making me invested in the genius of Wilson. Not that I don’t recognise the genius of specific Beach Boys songs, but I’ve never had the urge to sit down and listen to an entire album; for me, they just don’t hold that kind of allure.


The gradual disintegration of Dano-Brian, striving for ever-purer creative expression in the face of doubts about performing, reluctance on his fellow band members’ parts to go with his outré fare (Jake Abel’s Mike Love being most vocal), and a father from whom he seeks acknowledgement from but who is simultaneously entirely poisonous (Bill Camp, brazenly unsympathetic), while consuming substances that aren’t exactly helping his fragile psyche, makes for a compelling compendium signalling imminent mental collapse, particularly when spliced by the fractured time frames, as we shunt back and forth over two decades. For once, Dano’s naturally wan, insipidly-minded demeanour meshes with a sympathetic character, and alchemy ensues.


Cusack-Brian is, in contrast, solid rather than spectacular. Ironic, as I always rather rated Cusack, at least until he hooked up with Nic Cage and Val Kilmer’s tax adviser and started making any shit, anytime, anywhere. I shouldn’t be surprised that the performance is merely competent, as Cusack has never been exactly an immersive actor; he is very much always himself playing his subject. So, while we perceive Wilson’s distant, little boy lost, he never disappears into the role. This actually doesn’t matter too much, because while the ‘60s passages are very much about Brian being centre stage, his passivity in the later phase requires someone else to take the lead: Elizabeth Banks as romantic partner and saviour Melinda Ledbetter.


Melinda locks horns with Brian’s suffocating, vainglorious “Dr” Eugene Landy, a classic case of the psycho prescribing psychotics, in a typically excessive, loathsome, two-dimensional, bug-eyed turn from Paul Giamatti. Which is to say, he’s very good, but I suspect I’m suffering a wee bit of Giamatti fatigue. I see him everywhere, walking around like normal people, in everything. The ‘80s sequence is more traditional in structure perhaps, providing as it does the essential catharsis, but this also makes it a hands-down winner purely in emotional stakes.
          
                                 
It would have been easy for Pohlad to get carried away with the ‘60s nostalgia and namedropping (“Paul McCartney said God only knows is the best song ever written”), but rather than obvious recreations, the best moments find Brian striking sparks off his session musicians (“Well, if you repeat a mistake every four bars, it’s not a mistake anymore”) and one of them comparing him to other greats they’ve worked with (“Phil’s got nothing on you” of Spector). That said, Wes Anderson’s regular cinematographer Robert Yeoman does a standout job evoking the era and its colours, man, its colours.


Perhaps the biggest compliment I can pay Love & Mercy is that it doesn’t need to be about Brian Wilson for it to work. It fosters enough empathic sustenance that the simple message “You need to find a way to get back to yourself” would hold true even if the lead character had been a nobody. Maybe that’s the key to a good biopic; get to the heart of the individual, and the rest will follow.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

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.

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

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.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

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.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

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.