How’d you manage to run over our llama?

Our Brand is Crisis

(2015)

(SPOILERS) Grant Heslov and George Clooney seem to have a knack for picking up fact-based fare on the grounds that it sounds vaguely interesting in a vaguely (or not so vaguely) political sense, and then attempting to work out a way of bashing it into some kind of semi-relatable narrative shape as a fiction movie. Occasionally they strike lucky (Argo, Good Night, and Good Luck), but more frequently they seem closer to having little idea, what with this and The Monuments Men and The Men Who Stare at Goats. Actually, I liked the latter, but it wore on its sleeve how no one had a clue how to make it work.

Our Brand is Crisis sounds like it should be good, based as it is on the 2005 doc of the same name concerning campaign strategists’ contributions to the 2002 Bolivian presidential election. But, like the majority of Clooney’s socially conscious fare it ends up mostly toothless (hardly surprising, when he happily hosts fundraisers for an overtly corrupt presidential nominee, presumably on the tremendously rocky grounds – always assuming he isn’t hopelessly deluded and genuinely thinks Hillary’s great, that is – that she’s better than the alternative). This is the movie equivalent of reformed ham, vaguely reminding you of the real thing but process-packaged to the hilt. The movie comes equipped with a jaunty, knowing, can-do vibe as it skims the surface of the ramifications and machinations of political power processes; it’s so determined to be accessible (rather than really good) that it ends up utterly inconsequential.

I’m not sure who’s to blame. Screenwriter Peter Straughan has been on a roll of late with Frank, Wolf Hall and Tinker Tailor, but let’s not forget he also has his name on The Debt, How to Lose Friends & Alienate People and the Goat Starers. Alternatively, I might single out director David Gordon Green, who like Richard Linklater tends to hit a bum note when he strays from the indie field.

The performers are fine, if unremarkable (Sandy Buttocks and Billy Bob Thornton and Scoot McNairy doing what we’ve seen them do many times, likewise Joaquim de Almeida appearing dodgy and duplicitous as per usual). The main problem is that the material, despite being ripe for exploration, is treated in the most obvious manner possible. The attempts by Bullock and Billy Bob to undermine each other’s candidates’ campaigns are banal, the genuine historical precedents ones we’ve heard many times before, leading to ones lacking any inventiveness (“I never knew Klaus Barbie”). Added to which, Bullock’s character arc is tediously familiar (burnt out, back in the game, firing on all cylinders to a generically upbeat soundtrack against campaign montages, shown to have more insight than everyone else, regular sparring chats with her Billy Bob nemesis).

In a way this is worse than straightforward mindless studio fare, because it’s made with exactly the same formulaic, hit-making mind-set but actually derives from worthwhile subject matter. As the opening voiceover informs us, campaign contributions (the ones Clooney, despite concurring with this assessment, is supporting) are indicative of an empirically corrupt system, but the self-satisfied manner in which Our Brand is Crisis sits on its satirical laurels and discusses electioneering through cartoonishly manufactured crises is dishearteningly antiseptic rather than stirring (inevitably the insidious IMF deal goes ahead, although curiously there isn’t a whiff of the CIA in all this). Worse still that our protagonist campaigner is lent nominal scruples; it’s a cop out to the realities of such forums, but of a piece with Clooney’s MOR handwringing in the likes of this, Money Monster and The Ides of March. A shame, as this might have been another Bulworth.

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

Comments

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

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.

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