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

We got two honkies out there dressed like Hassidic diamond merchants.

The Blues Brothers (1980) (SPOILERS) I had limited awareness of John Belushi’s immense mythos before  The Blues Brothers arrived on retail video in the UK (so 1991?) My familiarity with SNL performers really began with Ghostbusters ’ release, which meant picking up the trail of Jake and Elwood was very much a retrospective deal. I knew Animal House , knew Belushi’s impact there, knew 1941 (the Jaws parody was the best bit), knew Wired was a biopic better avoided. But the minor renaissance he, and they, underwent in the UK in the early ’90s seemed to have been initiated by Jive Bunny and the Mastermixers, of all things; Everybody Needs Somebody was part of their That Sounds Good to Me medley, the first of their hits not to make No.1, and Everybody ’s subsequent single release then just missed the Top Ten. Perhaps it was this that hastened CIC/Universal to putting the comedy out on video. Had the movie done the rounds on UK TV in the 80s? If so, it managed to pass me by. Even bef

Maybe he had one too many peanut butter and fried banana sandwiches.

3000 Miles to Graceland (2001) (SPOILERS) The kind of movie that makes your average Tarantino knockoff look classy, 3000 Miles to Graceland is both aggressively unpleasant and acutely absent any virtues, either as a script or a stylistic exercise. The most baffling thing about it is how it attracted Kevin Costner and Kurt Russell, particularly since both ought to have been extra choosy at this point, having toplined expensive bombs in the previous half decade that made them significantly less bankable names. And if you’re wondering how this managed to cost the $62m reported on Wiki, it didn’t; Franchise Pictures, one of the backers, was in the business of fraudulently inflating budgets .

We’re looking into a possible pattern of nationwide anti-Catholic hate crimes.

Vampires aka John Carpenter’s Vampires (1998) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter limps less-than-boldly onward, his desiccated cadaver no longer attentive to the filmic basics of quality, taste, discernment, rhyme or reason. Apparently, he made his pre-penultimate picture to see if his enthusiasm for the process truly had drained away, and he only went and discovered he really enjoyed himself. It doesn’t show. Vampires is as flat, lifeless, shoddily shot, framed and edited as the majority of his ’90s output, only with a repellent veneer of macho bombast spread on top to boot.

Remember. Decision. Consequence.

Day Break (2006) (SPOILERS) Day Break is the rare series that was lucky to get cancelled. And not in a mercy-killing way. It got to tell its story. Sure, apparently there were other stories. Other days to break. But would it have justified going there? Or would it have proved tantalising/reticent about the elusive reason its protagonist has to keep stirring and repeating? You bet it would. Offering occasional crumbs, and then, when it finally comes time to wrap things up, giving an explanation that satisfies no one/is a cop out/offers a hint at some nebulous existential mission better left to the viewer to conjure up on their own. Best that it didn’t even try to go there.

I must remind you that the scanning experience is usually a painful one.

Scanners (1981) (SPOILERS) David Cronenberg has made a career – albeit, he may have “matured” a little over the past few decades, so it is now somewhat less foregrounded – from sticking up for the less edifying notions of evolution and modern scientific thought. The idea that regress is, in fact, a form of progress, and unpropitious developments are less dead ends than a means to a state or states as yet unappreciated. He began this path with some squeam-worthy body horrors, before genre hopping to more explicit science fiction with Scanners , and with it, greater critical acclaim and a wider audience. And it remains a good movie, even as it suffers from an unprepossessing lead and rather fumbles the last furlong, cutting to the chase when a more measured, considered approach would have paid dividends.

Maybe I’m a heel who hates guys who hate heels.

Crimewave (1985) (SPOILERS) A movie’s makers’ disowning it doesn’t necessarily mean there’s nothing of worth therein, just that they don’t find anything of worth in it. Or the whole process of making it too painful to contemplate. Sam Raimi’s had a few of those, experiencing traumas with Darkman a few years after Crimewave . But I, blissfully unaware of such issues, was bowled over by it when I caught it a few years after its release (I’d hazard it was BBC2’s American Wave 2 season in 1988). This was my first Sam Raimi movie, and I was instantly a fan of whoever it was managed to translate the energy and visual acumen of a cartoon to the realm of live action. The picture is not without its problems – and at least some of them directly correspond to why it’s so rueful for Raimi – but that initial flair I recognised still lifts it.

I admit it. I live in a highly excited state of overstimulation.

Videodrome (1983) (SPOILERS) I’m one of those who thinks Cronenberg’s version of Total Recall would have been much more satisfying than the one we got (which is pretty good, but flawed; I’m referring to the Arnie movie, of course, not the Farrell). The counter is that Videodrome makes a Cronenberg Philip K Dick adaptation largely redundant. It makes his later Existenz largely redundant too. Videodrome remains a strikingly potent achievement, taking the directors thematic obsessions to the next level, one as fixated on warping the mind as the body. Like many Cronenbergs, it isn’t quite there, but it exerts a hold on the viewer not dissimilar to the one slowly entwining its protagonist Max Renn (James Woods).

I dreamed about a guy in a dirty red and green sweater.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) (SPOILERS) I first saw A Nightmare on Elm Street a little under a decade after its release, and I was distinctly underwhelmed five or so sequels and all the hype. Not that it didn’t have its moments, but there was an “It’ll do” quality that reflects most of the Wes Craven movies I’ve seen. Aside from the postmodern tease of A New Nightmare – like Last Action Hero , unfairly maligned – I’d never bothered with the rest of the series, in part because I’m just not that big a horror buff, but also because the rule that the first is usually the best in any series, irrespective of genre, tends to hold out more often than not. So now I’m finally getting round to them, and it seemed only fair to start by giving Freddy’s first another shot. My initial reaction holds true.

You seem particularly triggered right now. Can you tell me what happened?

Trailers The Matrix Resurrections   The Matrix A woke n ? If nothing else, the arrival of The Matrix Resurrections trailer has yielded much retrospective back and forth on the extent to which the original trilogy shat the bed. That probably isn’t its most significant legacy, of course, in terms of a series that has informed, subconsciously or otherwise, intentionally or otherwise, much of the way in which twenty-first century conspiracy theory has been framed and discussed. It is however, uncontested that a first movie that was officially the “best thing ever”, that aesthetically and stylistically reinvigorated mainstream blockbuster cinema in a manner unseen again until Fury Road , squandered all that good will with astonishing speed by the time 2003 was over.

You’re the bravest rat I’ve ever known.

Cruella (2021) Well, this is a surprise. The last thing I expected at this point in the course of Disney’s dogged determination to piss on its legacy was a decent live-action take on an animated classic and a decent origins story to boot at that. Perhaps it needs to be put down to the old exception that proves the rule, but Cruella hits a bullseye in several key respects: performance, direction and (derivative) premise. If the movie wanders during its final act, is grossly overlong and also inherently morally questionable, well that’s simply symptomatic of these times. And Disney all over.