Skip to main content

I'm me, man. I ain't trying to be nothing else.

Moonlight
(2016)

(SPOILERS) How quickly can you tell if a Best Picture Oscar winner is one for the ages? As often as not, they’re consigned disposable, crowd-pleaser status (The King’s Speech, The Artist, Argo) or branded with the opprobrious idea that a plain underserving movie got garlanded (A Beautiful Mind, Chicago, Crash). And, as often as not, there are pressing concerns dictating the choices the Academy members made on any given occasion, over and above what they simply thought was straight-up best (not to mention, in recent years, the skew of the tier system ballot coming into play). I have but one film left to see out of this year’s nine nominees, and as such I think I can now comfortably conclude that, while it’s a well-made movie, Moonlight definitely didn’t warrant the top honour. Structurally as problematic as Lion, with the same issue of differing levels of accomplishment in respect the performances of the lead character, it best illustrates Barry Jenkins’ talent as a director. And, of course, he didn’t win.


On a tonal level, Moonlight probably bares closest comparison to Manchester by the Sea, in terms of both being closely-observed character dramas. But even then, it’s much less beholden to calculated turns of plot, attempting as it does the conceit of a naturally unfolding narrative. Jenkins has taken on the influences of European cinema in their most permeating, expansive sense, such that he allows scenes and characters to linger and breathe, rather than being driven by the engine of where his story is heading. This is immensely beneficial in the first two acts – the picture is divided into three periods in Chiron’s life, each played by three different actors – but proves a stumbling block to the last, where the same approach, now without an externalised conflict and so reliant on a performer unable (or by the design of his character’s stoicism) to deliver, leaves it curiously flat and listless.


Chiron’s internalisation means that, particularly in the opening act, you’re unsure at first if Alex Hibbert is playing his part well or is rather as inexpressive as the character’s younger self. This doesn’t matter too much either way, as both Mahershala Ali (as the surrogate father Juan who passes through Chiron’s life, atypically of such narratives neither predator nor user but laden with a gnawing, unvocalised guilt over his own choices and a desire to redress them in some small way, a position that, for all Chiron’s rejection, surely subliminally influences his own future career choice) and Naomie Harris (as his junkie mum Paula, an impressively unsympathetic performance, and illustrative of the quality of Best Supporting Actress nominees this year) more than compensate in providing dramatic substance.


The latter’s most compelling scenes come during the second act, also by far the most commanding sequence, but Ali more than deserved his statuette for his sensitive portrayal of the dealer who supplies Chiron’s mother and encourages the boy to accept who he is (the biggest complement you can pay him is that you miss his presence throughout the subsequent acts). If there’s a problem here, it’s that the more emotional moments don’t quite play; Chiron confronting Juan and leaving when he knows the truth carries the marks of a performance that couldn’t quite be made in the edit.


On the other hand, Ashton Sanders’ teenage Chiron is an outstanding performance, carrying the impression of his younger self but with the intervening decade of bullying, unstable mother and closeted sexuality having weighed ever heavier upon him. The key to this passage is surely the universal recognisability of such rites of passage, however extreme in Chiron’s case, and the conflict, isolation and burden that accompany these formative years.


The strongest element of the third act is Andre Holland’s hugely winning performance as the adult Kevin, a character who has featured significantly in both previous episodes of Chiron’s life and represents his first (and only) gay encounter. But Holland’s heavy lifting is unable to rescue a meandering vignette in which Trevante Rhodes may be schematically justified as a buff incarnation of the still recalcitrant main character (all the better to hide your true nature beneath), but is unable to lend dramatic weight to his existence.


This Chiron seems to exist in a bubble of the filmmaker’s mind, and without evidence of how he lives, his existence (aside from visiting his mother and teaching an under-dealer the tricks of the trade, both of which feel rather schematic) there’s little to latch onto. The picture wanes and loses its impetus, even given that it offers the culmination of Chiron and Kevin’s arc, rediscovering each other and expressing their feelings openly, and with it the subdued observation that has been the cornerstone of Jenkins’ approach unravels.


At its best, Moonlight is an acutely insightful study of a passage to adulthood (in its way, charting the same course as another Oscar nominee, Boyhood, did a few years ago), powerful, affecting and intensely well observed, accompanied by a fine score from Nicholas Britell that has an almost Philip Glass quality (the classical influences here are generally better integrated than in Manchester by the Sea). The picture’s problem isn’t (as some criticisms have levelled) that it doesn’t have an ending, it’s that its third act lacks sufficient measure, that as its lead character takes control of his destiny, so his journey becomes less potent.


If Rhodes’ performance had matched Holland’s, Moonlight might have carried through, but after the dramatic crescendo of his teenage years, Chiron is left in a place of minimum impact, dramatically and in terms of audience investment. Doubtless Jenkins will continue writing-directing in whatever he does next, but most impressive here are his choices in the latter field, in particular sound design (silence is used to powerful effect in crucial scenes) and his willingness to explore character through unforced observation and mood rather than exposition or calculated dramatic incident.


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.

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

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 ?