Skip to main content

So the house is falling apart and the vineyard makes undrinkable wine. Excellent.

A Good Year
(2006)

(SPOILERS) I oughtn’t really to like A Good Year. And, kind of, I don’t. But I kind of do too. Despite entirely floundering on a number of levels that should entirely incapacitate it on the starting line, it’s probably the most likeable, personable movie Ridley Scott has made in the past two decades. Which doesn’t make it very good, but it’s very evident he actually had something invested in what he was making for a change.


Top of the list of things that don’t work – since he’s in almost every scene – is Russell Crowe playing, effectively, Hugh Grant. If Hugh Grant had ever played a yuppie in the big city needing to discover his softer side via a sojourn in the French countryside. Crowe’s got the caricature of a toff accent down sufficiently, but he just isn’t the chinless cad type, and he isn’t a master of light comedy either, no matter how many times he brushes his hands through his floppy fringe in an approximation Oor Hughie. 


He’s a particular strain in the early stages of the picture, strutting the brokerage floor calling his staff "lab rats" or attempting casual pratfalls; it’s a horridly affected performance at the outset. However, transition him into a romance with Marion Cotillard, and he finds his footing. Which means the second part of the film – and typically of Ridley, it’s a two-hour fifteen-minute movie that should be at least an hour shorter – is a much more amenable, approachable experience.


The other big problem, which again sort of drops away when the romance becomes the focus, is that there’s a reason Scott hadn’t done a comedy before (Thelma & Louise doesn’t count); he’s got zero comic timing. Sure, he can handle a laugh when it derives from a dramatic situation (Thelma & Louise can hold its hand up here), but one only has to look at his execution of comic hijinks, such as Max Skinner (Crowe) racing round and round a village fountain in a smart car like he’s auditioning for Benny Hill, to realise he’s utterly clueless. Tellingly, Ridders hasn’t returned to the genre since, although it might have something to do with A Good Year bombing (it barely made back its budget).


It was that rarity for Scott: a project he initiated, having lived in Provence for fifteen years at that point (so it must now be a quarter of a century, if he’s still in residence) and wanting to make a movie there (the entire thing was filmed eight minutes of his house, so goes the boast). He went to Peter Mayle, whose A Year in Provence had met with considerable success, spawning a TV series starring John Thaw; Mayle ended up turning the idea into a novel rather than a screenplay, one that diverged from what Scott wanted. So Scott harnessed Marc Klein to refashion the essentials. 


There are rocky elements from the off, notably the intrusive flashbacks to Albert Finney’s Uncle Henry and an endlessly precocious Freddie Highmore as the young Max; Max spent many of his summers with Henry, who has recently expired and left his property to him. It’s nice to see Finney in a Scott movie again (the last was his first, The Duellists), and he’s on effortlessly iconic form as the kind of figure who would stay with you throughout your life, no matter how distant you become, but the device itself never feels less than bodge (at one stage in the writing, Henry was planned as a ghost speaking to the present-day Max). There’s also an annoyingly affirmative retrieved memory device, linking Max’s childhood to his present; Scott evidently thought it was such a great idea, he used it again for Robin Hood. And yet, the longer you stay with the director’s detour from his accustomed genre, the more his evident love of the countryside (gorgeously photographed by Phillipe Le Sourd) rubs off on you, as it does Max. 


It helps that the supporting cast are note perfect. On the Gallic side, there’s Didier Bourdon as the estate’s idiosyncratic winemaker and Isabelle Candelier as his frisky wife (there’s only five years between Crowe and Bourdon, although there’s evidently supposed to be many more). Cotillard is perfect as the irresistible, uncatchable Fanny, and Abbie Cornish very appealing as Max’s illegitimate sibling Christie, who importunely shows up to put a potential spanner in Max’s plans for a quick sale of the chateau and vineyard. 


Best of all is Tom Hollander as Max’s estate agent chum Charlie, a scene-stealing reminder of how the lead should have been performed – privileged, slightly obnoxious, but very funny – and he makes a much more engaging, relentlessly toffy toff than Crowe ("We don’t say shabby, Max. We say filled with the patina of a bygone era"; "This is a disaster. Mr froggy wine man has just knocked a million off our sale price"; "In France, is it actually illegal to shag your own cousin?": "Only if she’s ugly")


MaxI love this place. It’s intoxicating. I can’t for the life of me think why I stopped coming down here.

A Good Year also comes armed with an infectiously catchy, jaunty little score from Mark Steitenfeld (a protégée of Hans Zimmer who went on to provide the accompaniment for the next four Scott movies) that does a lovely job evoking an enticing, frivolous, luxuriant mood. It’s a foregone conclusion that Max will forsake being an asshole in the city for the good life in France, and even given the grievous miscasting, you’re rooting for him to make the right choice. This applies to the movie as a whole: even though you know Scott has made better, that it’s something of a mess and that the stabs at broad comedy fail entirely, A Good Year still has a certain charm. How many Scott movies conjure a place you’d actually want to visit?


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

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.