Skip to main content

So, um... You think we can get to the Moon?

Hidden Figures
(2016)

(SPOILERS) The second biggest hit (worldwide) out of this year’s Oscar nominees, Hidden Figures seems to have stuck around in theatres the longest, perhaps because of its “educational” content. This tale of NASA’s black female mathematicians is the kind of movie mind instantly goes to when looking for an example of palatable Oscar fluff (see also A Beautiful Mind), socially progressive but entirely without a spine, the kind of movie you come away from thinking all is good with the world, as we’re all heading in the right direction. It’s banal, aspirational and inoffensive (unless you find its very inoffensiveness offensive).


Theodore Malfi posits his trio of protagonists in a struggle against, and victory over, prejudice, reaching its climactic moment when nice liberal Kevin Costner (who fits these kinds of roles like a glove: paternal, upright, firm but fair, just the kind of white guy you want singlehandedly striking a huge win for the civil rights movement) goes to it against the “Colored Ladies Room” sign. Never mind that in reality Katherine Johnson (Taraji P Henson) had been using the whites’ toilets all along, or that segregated areas had been abolished by NASA by 1961; it’s symbolic, see? And provides some solid lavatorial humour as she has to continually make herself scarce to trek to the other side of the compound to take a leak.


The argument would be that, even if NASA wasn’t quite so institutionally racist by 1961, other places were, so it’s fair game. Which I can see, but you do rather get the sense the deck has been so loaded on this one by screenwriters Melfi and Allison Schroeder as to make it slightly risible. After all, another big bone of contention is Kirstin Dunst’s hard-ass boss refusing to give Dorothy Vaughan (Octavia Spencer) a promotion to supervisor; Vaughn actually held this role from 1948.


It isn’t the lack of fidelity to the truth that makes Hidden Figures a mediocre movie, though – The Right Stuff is also entirely laissez-faire with the facts, and that’s a classic –  it’s the relentless, shameless button-pushing that these alterations service. And the safe, cosy view of progress that puts this in territory not a million miles from Driving Miss Daisy. The level of cloying, feel-good sentiment ought to make any discerning viewer involuntarily gag. When Mary Jackson (Janelle Monae) opines that, as a Negro woman, she doesn’t stand a chance of being accepted into the engineering programme (which that actual Jackson joined in 1958), she is told, as an illustration of just what is possible at NASA, institution of realised dreams, “And I’m a Polish Jew whose parents died in a Nazi concentration camp”. Which is about as Hollywood Screenwriting 101 as it gets.


But, for the first half of the movie, before the “drama” of John Glenn’s spaceflight rather defeated me, it was easy to get carried along with the relentlessly upbeat triumph-through-perseverance plotting (accompanied by a mawkish score from Hans Zimmer, Pharrell Williams and Benjamin Wallfish, one that lifts the far superior L’Enfant by Vangelis, to my ear anyway).  Al Harrison’s line “Here at NASA, we all pee the same colour”, the stuff of a thousand banner articles, was the one that did for me, actually, in retrospect.


No complaints about the cast, though, except that Glen Powell simply isn’t Ed Harris, so cannot be John Glenn. Henson and Costner take the honours for how resolutely appealing they are, while Dunst and Jim Parsons are solid as the obstinate obstacles to progress who either learn (or think they do) or bring a climactic cup of atoning coffee.


Perhaps it should be a comforting sign that this kind of free-flowing syrup seems to have eternal staying power, but I’d rather watch a quality documentary on the subject any day than something as synthetically complacent as Hidden Figures.


This was the last of this year's Best Picture Nominees I got around to seeing, so for the record my ranking is as follows:

Manchester by the Sea

Hell or High Water 

La La Land

Arrival

Moonlight

Lion

Fences

Hidden Figures

Hacksaw Ridge

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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

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.

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.