Skip to main content

It’s okay, Joe. It’s okay.

You Were Never Really Here
(2017)

(SPOILERS) I haven't been fully on board with a Lynne Ramsey film since Morvern Callar, and I have a feeling that one would somewhat suffer from a revisit. Of course, there's only been one feature between that and this, 2011's We Need to Talk About Kevin, which evidenced in abundance her virtuoso filmmaking skills but left me less impressed by its horror/comedy impulses. There's a similar mutton-dressed-as-lamb quality to You Were Never Really Here; sterling lead performance, masterful direction, but in service of a screenplay that wouldn't be out of place in a Stallone movie.


They way some would have it, that seems to be the point, that the picture utilises the tropes but denies the catharsis of its mainstream forebears. But Ramsey, who wrote the script based on Jonathan Ames' novella, is able to inject little in the way of the resonance that suffuses Taxi Driver, with which it has been frequently compared. Joaquin Phoenix's PTSD-suffering vet Joe is the stuff of cornball cliché, a burly saviour of trafficked girls – he's a violent man whose violence is on the side of the angels – haunted by memories of his abusive father and his time in Iraq, who returns home each evening to tend to his elderly mother. Simply being a very good director and getting a very good actor to headline doesn't automatically transform those elements into creative gold. 


Indeed, in a ninety-minute movie, the first third of You Were Never Really Here mumbles along as if its laying important groundwork, which then fails to pay off. Ramsey isn't that interested in genre conventions, even though they fuel this kind of exercise, but that should mean she's exploring character instead. Except there isn't much to explore. Joe’s protector relationship with Nina (Ekaterina Samsonov) doesn’t evolve beyond the level of broad strokes, even given her agency to ultimately protect herself and offer him the possibility that if she can see that "It’s a beautiful day" then so can he (which seems somewhat unlikely, and for all the indie cred here, seems exactly the kind of spin a typical Hollywood version would give her).


The picture nurses some interestingly retrograde impulses in its characterisation of conspiracy yarns, however, given the current atmosphere is one where they're only sanctioned if they're the right kind of conspiracies (ie Russia's behind them). Joe is paranoid about having his cover blown, telling his handler (John Doman) as much, and he's proved correct when government agents kill his associates, including his mother. What’s more, the government is implicitly stuffed full of state-sanctioned paedophiles getting up to whatever they like, with only one righteous man with a mighty beard standing against them. 


We've seen most of the elements here in its mainstream cousins, often featuring Denzel Washington (Man on Fire, The Equalizer), right down to visiting the hardware store for tools with which to ply his deadly trade. All the reviews reference the scene in which Joe takes the hand of the dying agent who has just tried to kill him, together singing along softly to a cheesy song on the radio, as evidence of Ramsey's craft and distinctiveness. But, while the scene's arresting, it's also supremely affected, almost as if she's looking for a moment where you can say "This isn't what you'd get in a Hollywood actioner". Does Joe show empathy because the guy shot his mother in her sleep rather than making her suffer? Or does he lie next to the assassin breathing his last because, in its own way, it's as "cool" as shooting him full of lead in glorious slow motion?


Ultimately, Phoenix's efforts to perform detail for Joe feel laboured. You know Travis Bickle even though you know next to nothing about him. Joe's a cat person who reproves his mom for watching Psycho alone in the house at night and he loves green jelly beans; it's close to a sendup of the kind of character crutches demanded by method actor, and the inversion that is the (sturdy) child caring for the fragile adult is as much of a cliché as the ones Ramsey is attempting to trample. Joe's still a kick-ass killer, he still wears the heroic malaise of the tortured child who becomes the righteous executioner. And the final hopeful line is still trite, whichever way you wash it.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.