Skip to main content

I’m having a squabble with the chairs in this kingdom.

A Hologram for the King
(2016)

(SPOILERS) Tom Tykwer makes stunning-looking films (Perfume: The Story of a Murderer, The International and his sequences for Cloud Atlas among them), even if his – usually self-penned – screenplays aren’t quite on the same level. This is especially the case with his adaptation of David Eggers novel A Hologram for the King, which manages to finish up as disappointingly nothing much of anything, an amiable enough shrug of a movie that delivers Tom Hanks with his most traditionally Hanks – as in comedic – role in many a moon. It certainly isn’t a satire, although there are traces of same in its bureaucratic manoeuvrings, while its romance feels like an element decided upon during a script conference devoted to what the story lacks rather than what it merits. And as for its representation of living in Saudi Arabia, it might almost have been commissioned by their tourist board (albeit it was filmed in Morocco).


As in, there’s nary a whisper here of oppressive regimes and human rights violations; it’s such a jolly fine place for westerners to go, the lead character even takes up residence there at the end. After all, if you want decadent booze and drugs, no problem; you can find them. The only warning you need take note of is not to mention the CIA. The country even allows surreptitious topless bathing, as Hanks’ Alan Clay goes on a date with Sarita Choudhury’s doctor, Zahra. And the vistas! Tykwer’s regular cinematographer Frank Griebe ensures Morocco looks gorgeous.


Indeed, if you want to find someone to point to as a villain, look no further than old favourite China, which not only bought up Alan’s previous firm, but also undercuts his bid to sell holographic teleconferencing to the Saudi king.


If you can get past the absence of moral perspective, then much of what’s on display swims in familiarly appealing fish-out-of-water territory, and Hanks shows that, while his comic chops may have been untested for some time, they’re as versatile as ever. The first we see of Alan is an surprisingly active mime to Talking Heads’ Once In A Lifetime (one of several vibrantly visualised dream/drunk sequences), and he will run through a number of encounters and characters who leave him suitably, and amusingly, exasperated or at a loss. These include Alexander Black’s comedy cabbie Yousef (a bit like a less-dense Father Dougal), Sidse Babett Knudsen’s frisky expat Hanne, and a nigh-on impenetrable ladder of bureaucracy that prevents him from talking to anyone of importance at the development site (he and his colleagues have been set up in a tent, with no Wi-Fi and a busted air-con).


Alan is also the less-than-proud owner of a rather unsettling lump on his back which, though it fails to erupt into Richard E Grant’s second head, does lead to his first encounter with Zahra. Hanks and Choudry have low-key chemistry, and indeed Mr easy-going Hanks ensures pretty much every scene he’s sharing establishes a well-matched, breezy contrast of performance and pitch (his back-and-forth with Black is particularly rewarding, as Alan grows frustrated over everything, from music, to food, to being driven to Mecca).


A Hologram for the King’s over-the-hill businessman rediscovering his enthusiasm for life is less effective in its through line than the similar but more overtly fantasy-based Salmon Fishing in the Yemen, perhaps because the latter is unapologetic in its oddball plotting and nurtured romance, where this charts an emotionally unpersuasive course. While Tykwer keeps the running time admirably tight, there’s never a feeling that Alan has to do anything very much to right his ship. He comes, he sees, he almost imperceptibly self-discovers, and then his whole new life is miraculously sorted.



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

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

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.

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.