Skip to main content

Show me the chickens, Max.

Allied
(2016)

(SPOILERS) Just what is it that attracts Robert Zemeckis to a movie? Now that his prospects for creating entirely unasked for virtual landscapes have decisively dimmed, that is? The chance to work with accomplished, Oscar-winning or nominated actors on distinguished screenplays delving into intricate and rewarding subject matter? Or the opportunity to ransack the material, seeking some kernel or glimmer of a reason to justify further elaborate experimentation with some new technical trickery he has set his sights on this time? Yes, it’s the latter. Allied is a Notorious-esque WWII tale of romantically-entangled spies and the suspicions that arise, not so much of fidelity as loyalty to the winning side. Or, it’s the chance to give Brad a full virtual chemical peel, and roll those decades right off him, the odd unflatteringly turkey neck aside.


This CGI facial wash becomes the raison d’être of Allied (daring you not to find its content as unequivocally dull as its title), so if you’re keen to watch Brad in a not-quite uncanny valley state, but undeniably so very rather off, this will be right up your street. Otherwise, you will most likely find yourself left wanting. Zemeckis is working with less hyperbolic budgets these days, but they still afford him the chance to dabble in his preferred composite worlds, to as varying degrees of effectiveness as ever (honestly, his best work with effects remains his ‘80s output, when he wasn’t trying so hard).


Marvel at the manner in which Brad apparently lands his fighter plane and climbs out of it all in one shot (it’s that kind of thing you’ll probably find was the clincher in Zemeckis deciding to direct the picture)! Similar less-than-profound motivations likely went into the his decision to make The Walk (the plot is redundant thanks to the superior documentary, but just check out those vertiginous ambulatory exploits) and Flight (another plane crash, following Cast Away – oh, goodie!) And so, looking back on his career, similarly perfunctory, unadorned logic dictates his choices, post-Back to the Future; Who Framed Roger Rabbit (combine animation and live action), Death Becomes Her (unleash T2-standard CGI on a black comedy), Forrest Gump (Zelig-style interpolating of the lead character with news reel footage), Contact (more of the same, and the chance to do a 2001 trip sequence) and the challenge of making a whole movie while taking a break for Tom Hanks to get skinny (Cast Away and What Lies Beneath). Which brings us to his performance capture, decade-long pit.


So, if you’re trying to work out what Allied is about, scratching your head but to no avail, that’s what it’s about. You might have spent much of your viewing time hoping to be seduced and captivated by the romance between Brad’s Canadian Intelligence Wing Commander Max Vatan and Marion Cotillard’s French resistance fighter Marianne Beausejour, but to no avail. Brad’s playing elusive and Marion coquettish, and nary a tremulous spark is curried betwixt them.


Suddenly, they’re in the throes of passion and married and, Bob’s yer uncle, suspicion of Marianne’s true identity and allegiances is announced. At which point, you’re hopefully thoroughly invested in them being together and wishing it wasn’t true. But the fatal problem besetting Zemeckis’ movie, beyond even that it mistakes sluggish for elegant pacing (Zemeckis at his best is a master popcorn movie maker, but he’s not a debonair one, not in the sense of mustering élan and glamour; such gestures feel manufactured in his molten hands), is that you don’t care.


More than that, the problem is one of Steven Knight’s screenplay. He has written some corkers in the past (Eastern Promises, Locke), but here the structure never allows for empathy or investment. Cotillard is distant throughout (though more vital in her performance than the pixel-personified Brad), and so there’s no real power to her final sacrifice, or even her betrayal; this hasn’t been established as a game of cat and mouse from the start, à la Joe Esterhaz’s steamy thrillers (of which Jagged Edge is the exemplar), so when Max is ushered to the SOE basement, assuming a promotion is in the offing, it’s not so much a left turn as one that means others are doing all the donkey work.


And his resultant attempts to clarify matters, most notably during an excursion to France where he gets to “heroically” blow some shit up (and Zemeckis gets that fighter shot in), might be regarded as exposing his ineptitude (it follows his getting a pilot killed and sees him recklessly pursuing his own agenda, so demolishing the Bond super-spy myth) but is all ultimately on a hiding to nothing.


Which isn’t to say Knight and Zemeckis don’t occasionally score. The opening in Casablanca, chock full of Nazis sporting exotic uniform variants (a cossie for every country), makes the most of its Canary Islands shoot, and if the relationship lacks something, there’s the occasional burst of action to compensate as Max strangles a Hun in a phone booth and he and Marianne mow down their targets at a party (I don’t know about Marianne’s suggestion that actual French people wouldn’t be fooled by Brad’s French accent, though; how about just actual people?) These scenes suggest that, if Zemeckis would only get off his lauded perch and have some fun, he could make something as unapologetic as his ‘80s fare, complete with Spielbergian cartoon Nazis. Apart from that, though, commendably, the decision not to pull punches as to Marianne’s identity is at least something.


Simon McBurney, who’s making something of a supporting player name for himself as a spymaster, has a first class scene deep in a London basement as the Special Operations Executive man with bad news, and Matthew Goode scores as Max’s disfigured one-time colleague, abandoned in a nursing home. Jared Harris is also entirely formidable as Max’s superior, and Mike Leigh’s missus, Marion Bailey, walks off with the loathsome Nazi agent garland for her one scene standoff with Brad; Brad may bring the bullet, but she wins the acting award (that said, Anton Lesser barely registers in a comparable role, and his demise is off screen).


Other choices just seem odd, such as staging a party during an air raid, with apparent ambivalence towards the blackout. And the attempt at poetic panache as Marianne gives birth during another air raid falls entirely flat. Then there’s everyone seeming to be on drugs, which is all the rage in WWII lore of late, it seems (see Blitzed, on Hitler’s mashed Third Reich). With that and lesbians flaunting themselves freely, it’s amazing what an unfettered and tolerant era the war was. No wonder people get nostalgic for it.


Of which, what is with WWII being in vogue again? And particularly with Brad leading the charge (Inglorious Basterds, Fury, Allied). We’ve got Dunkirk coming up, and the recently announced Atlantic Wall with Bradley Cooper (fast becoming a facsimile of himself). Perhaps Hollywood is laying the foundations for encouraging an appreciative attitude toward a forthcoming conflict (if Russia’s out, maybe China will do), one that can be viewed as a similarly “just” war, and prep us with a host of ready material? Or it could just be the usual warped barometer, that knowing these movies can do well, they’ll keep on trying until they hit a sporadic, occasional jackpot.


Allied didn’t come cheap (enough), and its failure adds to the stack of Paramount underachievers this year. Brad might wring another 10 years of “youthful” stardom by having his features doctored each movie, but only if he picks his projects more judiciously. This has about as much cachet as the majority of failed star epic romance pictures, proving how difficult a genre it is to get right. Brad’s oft compared to Robert Redford, and he too came a cropper with such fare occasionally. Allied might be Pitt’s Havana.



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

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 .

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.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?

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