Skip to main content

Yeah, keep walking, you lanky prick!

Mute
(2018)

(SPOILERS) Duncan Jones was never entirely convincing when talking up his reasons for Mute’s futuristic setting, and now it’s easy to see why. What’s more difficult to discern is his passion for the project in the first place. If the picture’s first hour is torpid in pace and singularly fails to muster interest, the second is more engaging, but that’s more down to the unappetising activities of Paul Rudd and Justin Theroux’s supporting surgeons than the quest undertaken by Alex Skarsgård’s lead. Which isn’t such a compliment, really.


Jones cites M*A*S*H’s Trapper John McIntyre and Hawkeye Pierce as his inspiration for Cactus Bill (Rudd) and Duck (Theroux), noting their capacity for being very cruel to those they didn’t like. Rudd in particular has gone all out to take this literally, growing a massive Elliot Gould moustache and sporting a howling Hawaiian shirt. He’s a ringer. If Trapper John were a knife-wielding maniac with serious anger issues (but a daughter he adores). The refashioning of Donald Sutherland’s character as a disarming paedophile with an Owen Wilson blonde mop is an even greater leap, however.


As queasy as Duck’s narrative line is – I tend to think you need very good reason for pursuing this sort of subject matter in genre movies, or you run the risk of seeming glib or manipulative, and Jones doesn’t really pass that test – there’s a degree of astuteness going on in the characterisation of Bill realising Duck’s predilections and his subsequent warnings to him. Unfortunately, when the picture reaches a climax in which Duck takes off with Bill’s daughter, it moves into the kind of territory Bruce Robinson cited as troubling (“I don’t want to see a child in jeopardy as a piece of entertainment” he said of Neil Jordan’s reworking of his paedophile serial killer screenplay In Dreams).


Theroux does a very good Owen Wilson, it has to be said (you can tell Duck’s a bad seed as he has a penchant for unassuming cardigans), while Rudd’s metamorphosis into an extremely threatening villain is nothing short of a revelation (I’d never have taken him for convincing in that area). It’s perhaps unsurprising then that they effortlessly wrest any glimmers of attention from Leo (Skarsgård), as pretty much everyone here does likewise; also seen fleetingly are Robert Sheehan as a transsexual cabaret act, Dominic Monaghan as a geisha with a room full of sex-ware, Dudley-Moore-in-Foul Play-style, and Noel Clarke as an obnoxious Brit.


The Amish mute of the title, Jones’ bartender-cum-amateur detective protagonist is that exact two-word description – the Amish mute bit – in search of a character. Skarsgård has nothing to work with – his romance with Seynbeb Saleh’s Naadirah isn’t sufficiently engaging to make his hunt for her dramatically compelling – and even when Leo’s on the rampage (taking out a club full of Russians with a big stick) there’s a sense of something missing. It doesn’t help the overall tone of the piece either that Naddirah turns out to have been murdered by Bill, emphasising the dearth of good reasons to enter this less than salubrious world.


Mute didn’t start out with a sci-fi backdrop, so it should come as little surprise to learn there’s no point at which it feels remotely relevant. Sure, it’s nice to see Sam Rockwell as Sam Bell(s) again (“Lunar Industries ex-employee questioned by panel in presence of scores of his clones” announces a TV bulletin), but that’s the thinnest of motivations. The Amish-technophobia element could as easily have been applied to a present-day setting, if it came down to it, so that’s not really selling it either. Essentially, Mute offers art direction in search of cause. And costuming too, which appears to be entirely indulging Jones’ ‘80s retro-future obsession (shockingly coloured hair, new romantics, neon). The Berlin underworld is equally unnecessary but better finessed (it gives Bill and Duck an appropriately jaundiced fish-out-of-water quality; they’re refugees of the perpetual Afghan conflict).


The movie invites inevitable comparisons to The Shape of Water for its vocally-challenged lead character, but Leo never comes close to matching Elisa’s affecting presence. And if Guillermo del Toro’s picture is about outsiders’ mutual acceptance of each other for their differences, the decision to return Leo his speech is a baffling one, not least because Duck’s reasoning completely fails to translate (he wants him to apologise for killing Bill?!)


It’s worth noting the director’s departing dedication to his dad and nanny, but as a paean to surrogate parenthood the picture feels as half-baked as the idea that the Amish proverb opening the picture announces its theme (“In order to mold his people, God often has to melt them” – I don’t know if that’s an actual Amish proverb, but okay). Mute’s underwhelming reception will surely be particularly gutting for Jones, given the personal traumas that preceded and accompanied its production.


He’s reunited with Moon cinematographer Gary Shaw and composer Clint Mansell here, but the further we move away from the director’s commendable debut, the more worrying becomes the thought that he might have wowed us with a one-off. Source Code came with a string of positives, but it was very much made to order, while Warcraft was simply an overblown, unwieldy dud. Mute is better than that, at least, but there could be a lesson here that there’s sometimes good reason for failing to get a cherished project off the ground. Fingers crossed that isn’t crystallised when Gilliam’s The Man Who Killed Don Quixote arrives in a few months’ time.



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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

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 ?