Skip to main content

She is the worst goddamn singer in the whole world!

Florence Foster Jenkins
(2016)

(SPOILERS) A clueless old luvvie beset by dodgy vocal chords holds forth before a rapt peer group, little aware of how foolish she sounds. But enough about Meryl’s Golden Globes performance. Florence Foster Jenkins is good period fun, with a splash of pathos, in the serviceable manner that British heritage pictures tend to deliver so well. Stephen Frears, a genre-versatile director with a number of very good pictures on his CV has made an easily digestible piece of fluff that seems built for Oscars and Streep’s annual nomination assault. It would be mean-minded to find significant fault with what’s on offer, but it’s worth noting that the darling of the awards circuit’s performance is not one the best herein.


Indeed, there’s a whiff of déjà vu about her mannered delivery. Not exactly in a bad way, as she’s become quite adept at comedy since the late ‘80s, at which point she couldn’t get arrested (remember She Devil?) But if what we’re getting is a ham playing a ham, the problem is that the ham in question is acting royalty; Meryl could never be a truly great ham, the sort who can go off the deep end and turn ham into something to be relished. She’s much too controlled, measured and faux-humble for that.


So it’s Hugh Grant, as St Clair Bayfield, husband and manager of Florence’s New York heiress, and Simon Helberg, as her pianist Cosmé McMoon, who deserve the lion’s share of the plaudits. One might argue Grant is the ultimate actor for déjà vu, always giving the same performance, often in what appears to be the same film (certainly in the same role). But there’s a reason (apart from the way in which he actually doesn’t think he’s much cop, not faux-humbly so) Grant is so selective with his material; he rightly knows he’s best suited to certain sorts of roles, and while they’re very different kettles of acting fish, he has as keen a sense of this as his surname’s sake Cary did.


You need someone charming and likeable to play a character who is essentially a philanderer and questionable in terms of the extent to which he’s a gold-digger using his relationship to facilitate a particular lifestyle, career and social whirl. Grant embodies this side of St Clair but also a genuine devotion to Florence, and we don’t doubt that the two aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s also easy to forget just what masterful, natural comic timing Grant has; when he’s in a scene with Streep, it’s difficult not to see her overplaying her way through the role while all Hugh needs is the odd inflection or gesture.


I’m not a big fan of The Big Bang Theory – it’s passable and inoffensive it happens to be on and I happen not to have the energy to lift the remote – but my appreciation of Helberg’s abilities has gone up hugely on seeing him here. There’s something slightly Alan Cumming-esque about his flighty, slightly shrill performance, but while it’s ostensibly played for laughs, he knows exactly when to switch into sincere and empathic. At first we consider Cosmé superior and a bit snotty, but despite his concerns over career suicide by association with Florence (the financial temptation can only be so much of a carrot), he too develops great affection for the “singer”, whom he found almost impossible to restrain his mirth at on first recital.


Helberg and Grant bounce off each other very well too, as Cosmé becomes privy to St Clair’s peccadillos, with the latter making him the fall guy when Florence witnesses the aftermath of a rowdy party (“When I said help yourself to a nightcap, I meant just one! Look what he’s done!”) It isn’t only Cosmé’s reaction to Florence that elicits laughs; Frears knows well the infectious nature of uncontrolled hilarity, such that when David Mills’ socialite pal of Rebecca Ferguson (as Kathleen, St Clair’s girlfriend) witnesses Florence for the first time his attempts to restrain himself are a hoot, only topped by Nina Arianda’s Agnes Stark, eventually led from the concert on all fours, wracked by uncontrollable hysterics.


Agnes’ subsequent turnabout at the Carnegie Hall gig, then, as Florence is assailed by uncouth armed forces hecklers, is just the kind of move the picture could have done without, offering a treacly celebration of how Florence’s sheer, undaunted, oblivous bravery and purity of spirit affects all she comes into contact with.


As to how aware the actual Florence was of the less-than-genuine appreciation of her admirers, the verdict appears to be mixed. She had been singing for years prior to the compressed events depicted in the picture, so some say there’s no way she wasn’t, and didn’t to some extent thrive on it. On the other hand, the response to the Carnegie Hall concert is said to have deeply hurt her (although she suffered a heart attack shopping five days later, rather than retiring to her death bed as depicted here). Likeable as it is, Florence Foster Jenkins is little more than the latest in a line of serviceable, fast-food period pictures; after the heat dies down from its various nominations, you’ll soon forget it existed.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.