Skip to main content

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

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979) Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

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

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.