Skip to main content

Caustic wit is my religion.

Can You Ever Forgive Me?
(2018)

(SPOILERS) There’s probably a version of Can You Ever Forgive Me? – perhaps even one starring Melissa McCarthy and Richard E Grant – that’s more lightweight and less ruminative, emphasising the hoodwinking hijinks and hilarity over the alcoholism and despair. Not that Marielle Heller’s is a depressing film – it’s frequently very funny – but it’s undeniably an inward looking one, which may explain why material with in-built potential for reaching a wider audience – a down-on-her luck author turns forger and becomes something of a cause célèbre – failed to make a splash.

It did garner three well deserved Oscar nominations, though, Best Actress for McCarthy, Best Supporting Actor for Grant and Best Adapted Screenplay (Nicole Holofcener and Jeff Whitty, from Lee Israel’s autobiographical book of the same name), and if it went home empty handed, Grant certainly made the most of the awards circuit tour without seeming like he was cynically touting for business. He’s in prime REG mode here, boisterous, energetic, full of vim and scabrous wit as Lee’s gregarious gay friend and co-conspirator Jack Hock. Hock’s enormously likeable, itinerant yet somehow getting by as long as he has on his charm and essential eccentric Englishness. Grant hasn’t often been granted roles that make the most of his idiosyncratic skillset – the last was probably Dom Hemingway – but when he’s cast to his strengths, as here, he’s in another league. It isn’t for nothing that the performance has been compared to his star-making turn as Withnail, as there’s a common relish in seeking to shock filtered through an underlying pathos.

This is McCarthy’s movie, though and she effortlessly and unshowily adjusts to the demands of straight drama. One might point to Lee’s acid wit as a crutch that ensures McCarthy doesn’t venture into such potentially treacherous territory unaided, but really, there’s no sense at all of her relying on schtick or familiar quirks and ticks. She fully inhabits Lee, a self-destructive, booze-fuelled loner who does her best to be her own worst enemy. Israel’s never less than a prickly customer, but also strangely sympathetic in her persistent self-sabotage. Part of that is the classic trait of someone who is cleverer and funnier than anyone else, even or especially if they aren’t recognised for it; when she resorts to criminality as a means to dig herself out of a hole of debt and potential destitution, we can only cheer her on, particularly as – even if Jack doesn’t really recognise it, and she’s wont to over-inflate the art of what she’s doing at the expense of the illegality – what she’s doing takes significant creative skill and her victims are offscreen folks with more money than sense (of course, once her subterfuge crashes down around her, it really does crash, but even then, her forgeries were still being taken as bona fide a decade and a half later, at least in first-edition form).

I only recently read how Julianne Moore had originally been cast as Lee, complete with fake nose and fat suit, that Holofcener, then the director, fired her before falling out of the project herself; it eventually reassembled with Heller (whose Diary of a Teenage Girl is also marked out by a very particular wit, albeit with a much more striking colour palette and visual style). Ironically, since he seems to be responsible for every other film she does being a stinker, actor-director and McCarthy’s hubby Ben Falcone (Alan Schmidt in the film) presumably brought it to her attention as he’d already been cast in the Holofcener iteration.

If Heller’s film has a flaw, it’s that you don’t really get a sense of how sustained Lee’s period of ill-gotten success was – the excerpt from her novel at the end, for example, suggests Jack was selling her work for quite a spell, whereas in the movie it barely takes up any time – as it seems to be biding time before her discovery no sooner than it has come to pass. That may be partly because you want to spend more time with this duo and enjoy their dubious behaviour – old enough to know better and behaving disgracefully – more fully. Neither does Can You Ever Forgive Me? really engage with the essence or ethos of the practice of forgery – certainly not in the delightful manner of Orson Welles’ F for Fake – aside from the odd aside about “who authenticates the authenticator” and Lee’s assertion that “I’ll have you know I’m a better Dorothy Parker than Dorothy Parker”. But that’s understandable, as while the underlying scheme itself is fascinating, this is principally a character study, and an admirably rounded one.

It’s to Heller’s credit that scenes that would have been over played or over cooked by someone with less sure a hand – Lee’s dinner date with a bookseller admirer/budding writer, her contrite court confession – play out affectingly. The same with the final meeting between Lee and Jack, allowing for emotion but not at the expense of mutual abuse. Lee pieces her life back together – she gets to write a book, which wasn’t published until 2008, and a new cat - but Heller has the wisdom to make this measured (and as the court confession suggests, she retained an evident pride in her illicit achievements). In its own low-key, unobtrusive way, this offers a classic morality tale – Lee is punished for her duplicity, Jack for his profligacy – but the twist is that neither is chastened by the behaviour for which they’re brought to account. Can You Ever Forgive Me? is one of last year’s most satisfying films, and one of its best performed. Hopefully home viewing will find it the wider audience it deserves. 


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 …

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.

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.

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.