Skip to main content

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite
(2018)

(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.


At times, the period irreverence put me in mind of Michael Winterbottom’s A Cock and Bull Story, but there was a warmth to that piece absent here. One gets the impression Lanthimos’ subjects – even painted on a more overtly comedic canvas that Sacred Deer as here – hold for him the curiosity of ants in an ant farm, an interesting experiment but one he’s going to waste no time getting worked up over. As a consequence, I rarely felt invested in how this would play out for the lead trio, even as they give it their all (Emma Stone being particularly deserving of praise, holding her own against peers Olivia Coleman and Rachel Weisz)


I suspect the capacity for ruthlessness and cruelty on display in the screenplay credited to (historian) Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara attracted Lanthimos, duly processed through his own eccentric digestive tract. Certainly, this is a period of English history rich and ripe for a literal interpretation, let alone the arch one the director adopts. A tale of a weak, frequently child-like, easily-influenced monarch caught between cousins sparring for her attentions and the power that comes with it, the triangular element appears to be (surprisingly) accurate, even if the accompanying intimacy is mostly a source of speculation. Queen Anne (Coleman) was evidently very reliant on Sarah Churchill (Weisz) at one point, Churchill falling out of favour and Abigal Masham (Stone) supplanting her. And Churchill and her husband, the Duke of Marlborough (Mark Gatiss, speaking earnestly of his need to sleep with his men), were indeed ultimately banished. Decisions regarding the war with France take on the mannerisms of farce, presided over by a frequently stuporous queen, with parliamentary decrees dependent on whoever has whispered in her ear most persistently in the preceding period. 


There’s strong support from Nicholas Hoult as the Earl of Oxford, relishing the chance to be a rotter and very funny with it, but the presence of duck-loving James Smith as the Earl of Godolphin (The Thick of It) rather serves as a reminder of the superior fun Armando Iannucci might have had with this political hotbed of insensible decision making. 


Lanthimos populates the court with distracting/ flashy choices, often weird and/ or funny, but also frequently trying a bit too hard. The use of natural light à la Barry Lyndon is typical his oeuvre, but he also encourages cinematographer Robbie Ryan to employ a largely unmotivated and excessively flourished fisheye lens (and much use of low angles, although that’s a more consistent tic). The sumptuous classical strains and modern composers on the soundtrack are largely successful, however, in particular the discordant viola of Luc Ferrari as tension rise. 


And he throws in duck racing and shooting, rabbit fondling and crushing under heel, laughing naked slo-mo fat men as willing target practice (with oranges), and crazy dancing of the sort you’d more likely expect in a Will Ferrell comedy. None of which really adds up to a coherent whole (if you want a bawdy period romp with an irreverent style but consistent tone, you could do worse than Tony Richardson’s Tom Jones). Indeed, the picture is more successful in the final stretch, when the self-conscious lunacy is dropped for no-holds barred contention between Abigail and Sarah.


As far as this awards season is unfolding so far, following this and Roma, I’m finding myself fairly unimpressed with the frontrunners. I can see why The Favourite is gaining traction, as it ticks the box of being nominally a heritage piece while simultaneously being just enough but not too unorthodox enough to turn off voters. It’s also an embarrassment of riches in the acting categories. But I feel as if Lanthimos has fooled critics into becoming their favourite, as Lars von Trier did before them. Which may mean a fall from grace is in the offing at some stage.


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.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

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.

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.

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.

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.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.