Skip to main content

A bad review is better than sinking into the great glut of anonymity.

Velvet Buzzsaw
(2019)

(SPOILERS) Oh dear. That’s two strike outs in a row for Dan Gilroy, following Roman J. Israel, Esq. And it all looked so rosy in the wake of Nightcrawler. For his third feature as helmer, Gilroy has offered up a skewering of the LA art world via a supernatural force exacting revenge for misuse of a deceased artist’s paintings. If that instantly carries with it an air of familiarity, like an extended X-Files episode that fails to hit its target, that’s entirely understandable. Velvet Buzzsaw wants to be as gaudily over the top as the title, but has to settle for not being all that incisive, smart or funny instead.

I wondered if Gilroy had seen Amicus portmanteau Vault of Horror (1973), mostly adapted from EC Comics’ Tales from the Crypt; in the final segment, Drawn and Quartered, Tom Baker’s painter is enabled (via a voodoo priest) to take revenge on those who cheated him of his rightful earnings; he paints their portraits, which he then mutilates, ensuring their demise. Here, the passing of the completely unknown Vetril Dease is seized upon by agent Josephina (Zawe Ashton) to further her career following a run-in with her employee Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo: Haze was once a member of the punk band of the title); in consort with Haze, she pretends she found them in a skip, ignoring the explicit instructions Dease (sounds lazily like disease) left that they be destroyed.

Naturally, his art becomes enormously popular, which is when those involved in trading or obtaining it start dropping dead. As one would expect from a horror tale, Dease has a dark history; he was sent to the Good Templars Orphanage following the deaths of his mother and sister; when he left, he tortured and murdered his father, and was sent to a psychiatric hospital for the criminally insane that used inmates for medical experiments, injections, shocks, “God knows what else”; on his release he ended up as a janitor at a veterans home for 42 years, plying his talent in secret, with an emphasis on blood.

Gilroy’s laid down all the detail for a pseudo-science X-Files explanation if one wants one, then, of an insane man’s id-unleashed through dark experiments, but he’s made a film that, despite the trappings, isn’t remotely scary. Even the kills are pretty pedestrian: art coming alive and attacking people in fairly unimaginative ways (by hanging, by robot Hoboman exhibit, and a rather nano-tech-derivative suffusion by CGI paint). Haze’s end comes via her own Velvet Buzzsaw tattoo, having taken pains to empty her house of all artwork, but the only really memorable one is the most Grand-Guignol, in which an art curator (Toni Collette) has her arm severed by an exhibit (Gilroy was inspired by Roman Holiday, but I thought of Peter Duncan in Flash Gordon).

None of this is executed with much in the way of dread, build up or visceral panache. Gilroy compared his project to The Player, and it shares a similarly lackadaisical pace, at odds with its genre leanings, while also lacking that movie’s insider edge and satirical bite. The first fifteen minutes sprawls untidily as if Gilroy’s either forgotten how to grab the viewer or doesn’t care, content to arbitrarily introduce characters with no obvious sense of purpose of trajectory. And so it goes on, setting the tone for the rest of the movie, even once the from-beyond-the-grave justice plot is established.

Gilroy gets the best performances from returning collaborators, Gyllenhaal (OTT, but fortunately not Okja OTT) and missus Russo (suitably cool, calculating and conniving), and also Collette’s Gretchen; when she and Gyllenhaal get together, it’s momentarily a wonderfully OTT competition for who can go most OTT, as if they’re channelling the spirits of Richard E Grant and Sandra Bernhard, but alas, they only get a scene or two.

Ashton seems entirely miscast, one of those cases where an English actress has been drafted in, retaining her RP, and comes across as entirely wooden. Billy Magnussen has an annoyingly intrusive and extraneous role as gallery worker-cum-artist that might suggest a larger role left on the cutting room floor, in which case, I can’t say it’s a shame to have lost it. John Malkovich is an artist with painter’s block but is only worth remarking upon for surviving the movie (his final scene of doodles in the sand being washed away by the tide was the germ inspiration for the movie, in the wake of the aborted Superman Lives). Stranger Things’ Natalia Dyer plays an innocent who somehow escapes the wrath of Dease, I guess through not having tangibly got her hands dirty with his works.

The occasional scene manages to stand out: Rhodora arriving at Josephina’s apartment and effortlessly commandeering her representation of Dease; a marvellously chilly bit post-Gretchen’s death wherein it’s related to Rhodora how security guards thought her dismembered body was part of a new installation, so they just opened the gallery and let visitors in, with kids from a school tour duly stepping in her blood. These are fairly rare, though.

And, while there’s some decent barbed dialogue (“A bad review is better than sinking into the great glut of anonymity”; “We don’t sell durable goods. We peddle perception. Thin as a bubble”; “All art is dangerous, Mort”; disrespectful funeral talk – “That casket. What colour is that? Smog orange? Did they buy it on sale?”) it only takes one stinker to sink the ship; “We’ve got a fucking problem. Literally” is literally a line mid-coitus. NotGilroy’s best writerly move.

So, alas, we can add Velvet Buzzsaw to the increasing pile of Netflix movies that have given a director carte blanche, only for the uninhibited director to then deliver something less than scintillating. I’m not ensorcelled.


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.

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

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.