Skip to main content

In my country, if you don't matter to the men in power, you do not matter.

Red Sparrow
(2018)

(SPOILERS) The biggest talking point in the wake of Red Sparrow’s release isn’t the movie itself, it’s whether or not J-Law is a bona fide box office draw. The answer is fairly mundane: about as much as any other big name star outside of a franchise vehicle is. Which isn’t very much. Peg her alongside Dwayne Johnson, Vin Diesel, Tom Cruise and on the lower end of the scale, the eternally-struggling-for-an-audience-when-not-Thor Chris Hemsworth. The movie itself, then? While it replicates the stride and demeanour of a traditional Cold War spy yarn with assuredness (as in, it’s a conscious throwback), Red Sparrow falls short in the conviction stakes.


Indeed, more of the strident, brazen disregard for convention of Atomic Blonde might have done the movie a power of good, as it rather falls between two stools. On the one hand, keen to emphasise the plausible strife, suffering and endurance of Lawrence’s Dominika Egorova through unvarnished depictions of sexual assault, physical and emotional violation, and… stylish water torture. On the other, happy to titillate in classic sexy Hollywood thriller style. Dominika is presented as a young woman with a capacity for violence, but almost entirely omitted is the charting of her resourcefulness as an agent in favour of depicting training as a series of sexual confrontations; then, lo and behold, she’s miraculously deemed ready to go out in the field. There’s a fatal failure in underpinning here, as we have no real insight into what Dominika’s supposed to have learned (other than the art of conquering men, which is sketched as an intuitive sense anyway), so everything that follows seems rather unlikely. And not in the Atomic Blonde, uber-heightened action sense, but in the “Dominika would never get away with any of this” distancing sense.


Justin Haythe adapted Jason Matthews’ 2013 novel, one that garnered comparisons with John Le Carré, but in the screen version at least, never quite betrays the necessary sense of authenticity and intricacy of the spy trade. That probably starts with the central conceit – “ballerina becomes covert operative” is exactly the kind of ludicrous selling point Hollywood laps up, about as plausible as an extreme sports enthusiast becoming a government agent; for starters, if you’re well enough known to be recognisable, why on earth would you be deemed a feasible asset, no matter how many strings your less-than-beneficent uncle may pull? – but it extends to the schemes she hatches, and the failure to elicit even a glimmer of tension between the demands of the patriotic and the personal (the former are only ever seen as unjust and to be endured in order to protect the personal; it might have been more interesting if Dominika has some investment in both, leading to conflicting loyalties).


Lawrence’s performance is fine, but for reasons of the above, you’re never quite buying that she’d be able to command the responses or permissions she gets (and the swimming cossie she chooses is all kinds of absurdly flaunting). Then there’s her uncle Ivan (Matthias Schoenaerts, a ringer for a young Putin in any biopic, surely a factor in his casting), who proves just a little too gullible for such a guileful, ruthless figure (I know she’s his Achilles’ heel, but it’s making that play effectively that’s elusive). That said, Schoenaerts gives probably the picture’s standout performance.


Most of the rest of the cast seem like stock types in this kind of formula paranoia, performing commendably but imbued with the distancing that comes from experienced thesps approximating vaguely Eastern European tones (I’ve said this of other recent Hollywood forays into other countries – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Child 44 and The Snowman among them – but the device of English speakers substituting for native languages seems increasingly antique). There’s Charlotte Rampling’s stern matron, Joely Richardson’s crook mum (offering groan-worthy motivation for Dominika), Ciaran Hinds’ shrewd colonel and Jeremy Irons’ quizzical general. Since we know there’s a spy to be revealed and there are only so many suspects, there aren’t too many possible surprises (I was pulling for Ivan, just to see how they’d explain it away), but Irons had to be suspicious, wearing as he does his uniform in a shockingly slouchy manner (top button undone, as if he’s just arrived from makeup unprepared, or been called away from a particularly uncompromising bowel movement).


Joel Edgerton is duly serious-minded as Lawrence’s love interest and makes much more of a thin role than a Pratt or Hemsworth would, but Nate Nash is a selection of half-baked clichés, from being a bit of a rebel to getting that one last chance from his bosses. One could argue that Nate and Dominika being upfront with each other concerning their respective agendas makes for a refreshing change, but it also saps any tension from the proceedings. Plus, there’s no chemistry between the stars.


The tension is serviced sporadically by the reliable Francis Lawrence, his fourth successive team-up with his surnamesake. He delivers the splutterings of sex and violence effectively, although sometimes a little too ornately (as in favour as I am of not dwelling on viscera, the care with which the skin-grafting device isn’t shown in action, or come to that, the manner in which a strategically-placed arm conceals his star’s finer modesty, serves to confirm how mannered and old-school the picture is in basic form). Where he stumbles is not dissimilar to Mockingjay Part I, unable to find the appropriate pace amid the boring old talking, with the consequence that Red Sparrow tends to the languorous when it should be claustrophobic and bristling with paranoia (De Palma at his peak could have worked his magic on it, including making an operatic virtue of the dafter elements).


There are a couple of first-class scenes along the way, though. One features a cameo from Mary-Louise Parker as a plastered chief of staff selling secrets while Dominika covertly switches them (are they really on floppy disc?!) and deals with her leery boss Volontov (Douglas Hodge). Another focuses on Sebastian Hülk, on fine psychotic hitman form as reliable assassin Matorin; the character’s only undermined at the final hurdle, for being silly enough to let Dominika loose with a skin-grafter.


Red Sparrow is predictably predictable with regards to its political take on the “evil empire”, making it again less intriguing than the infinitely dirty goings-on of every side in Atomic Blonde. This is more in line with Salt, where Russia will act with impunity against all things US simply because they’re Russia (that is, after all, the story everyone has been coaxed to swallow whenever the country is accused of malfeasance – “Of course they did, it’s Russia” – no matter how inept such flagrant displays might make them seem). Where America may have its minor issues (like failing to instil sufficient emotional detachment in its CIA guys – but hey, their humanity is a virtue!), at least it doesn’t indoctrinate its poor citizens (and its women!) to do its unspeakable commands... The essential takeaway from the movie is that the only good Russian is one enthusiastically betraying their country (unless excusably incapacitated), which probably thrills the CIA (who endorsed the novel with two thumbs up. Well, four actually).


Ultimately, the two Lawrences have teamed on a movie that isn’t thrilling enough to justify tentpole status or sufficient cerebral to garner critical respect; no doubt they put their heads together thinking Red Sparrow would show off Jennifer in a classy, serious, grownup role, but the material itself remains too pulpy to permit that. I can’t say Black Widow was really on my mind while watching, but any fears Marvel might have had for her announced solo outing – should they be intending to plunder the obvious origins story – ought to be put to rest on this evidence.


But even more than the iffy trained-assassin motif, Red Sparrow does rather leave open the question of just how effective a modern-day political thriller of any ilk can be, whether set in the Middle East or the former Soviet Union. Unless it’s extremely astute, it will be relying on learnt devices and simplified narratives, when the murk of motivation from all parties, and webs spun for reasons that don’t simply come down to good guy-bad guy posturing, are required if it’s to foster any conviction. As for a sequel (Red Sparrow is the first in a trilogy), I think we can safely assume it isn’t going to happen, at least not outside of a TV reboot.



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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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…

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…

You're waterboarding me.

The Upside (2017)
(SPOILERS) The list of US remakes of foreign-language films really ought to be considered a hiding to nothing, given the ratio of flops to unqualified successes. There’s always that chance, though, of a proven property (elsewhere) hitting the jackpot, and every exec hopes, in the case of French originals, for another The Birdcage, Three Men and a Baby, True Lies or Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Even a Nine Months, Sommersby or Unfaithful will do. Rather than EdTV. Or Sorcerer. Or Eye of the Beholder. Or Brick Mansions. Or Chloe. Or Intersection (Richard Gere is clearly a Francophile). Or Just Visiting. Or The Man with One Red Shoe. Or Mixed Nuts. Or Original Sin. Or Oscar. Or Point of No Return. Or Quick Change. Or Return to Paradise. Or Under Suspicion. Or Wicker Park. Or Father’s Day.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

Would you like Smiley Sauce with that?

American Beauty (1999)
(SPOILERS) As is often the case with the Best Picture Oscar, a backlash against a deemed undeserved reward has grown steadily in the years since American Beauty’s win. The film is now often identified as symptomatic of a strain of cinematic indulgence focussing on the affluent middle classes’ first world problems. Worse, it showcases a problematic protagonist with a Lolita-fixation towards his daughter’s best friend (imagine its chances of getting made, let alone getting near the podium in the #MeToo era). Some have even suggested it “mercifully” represents a world that no longer exists (as a pre-9/11 movie), as if such hyperbole has any bearing other than as gormless clickbait; you’d have to believe its world of carefully manicured caricatures existed in the first place to swallow such a notion. American Beauty must own up to some of these charges, but they don’t prevent it from retaining a flawed allure. It’s a satirical take on Americana that, if it pulls its p…

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his …

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Kindly behove me no ill behoves!

The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)
(SPOILERS) It’s often the case that industry-shaking flops aren’t nearly the travesties they appeared to be before the dust had settled, and so it is with The Bonfire of the Vanities. The adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s ultra-cynical bestseller is still the largely toothless, apologetically broad-brush comedy – I’d hesitate to call it a satire in its reconfigured form – it was when first savaged by critics nearly thirty years ago, but taken for what it is, that is, removed from the long shadow of Wolfe’s novel, it’s actually fairly serviceable star-stuffed affair that doesn’t seem so woefully different to any number of rather blunt-edged comedies of the era.

Is CBS Corporate telling CBS News "Do not air this story"?

The Insider (1999)
(SPOILERS) The Insider was the 1999 Best Picture Oscar nominee that didn’t. Do any business, that is. Which is, more often than not, a major mark against it getting the big prize. It can happen (2009, and there was a string of them from 2014-2016), but aside from brief, self-congratulatory “we care about art first” vibes, it generally does nothing for the ceremony’s profile, or the confidence of the industry that is its bread and butter. The Insider lacked the easy accessibility of the other nominees – supernatural affairs, wafer-thin melodramas or middle-class suburbanite satires. It didn’t even brandish a truly headlines-shattering nail-biter in its conspiracy-related true story, as earlier contenders All the President’s Men and JFK could boast. But none of those black marks prevented The Insider from being the cream of the year’s crop.