Skip to main content

The VP just sits around and waits for the President to die. You’ve said so yourself.

Vice
(2018)

(SPOILERS) It doesn’t bode well when you have to preface your movie with an admission that you know fuck all about your subject matter, even going as far as using the f-word jokingly as a means of saying you’re hip to this problem but you’re going to struggle on manfully anyway, as you’re telling an important piece of political history in a populist and accessible manner. You think. Underlined by repeating it at the end (“If you leave knowing Cheney no better than when you arrived, you’ll know how we feel”), which only emphasises that being self-aware regarding your abject failure doesn’t make it any less of a failure, even if you allows one to be smugly pleased over job badly done. So no, Vice just isn’t very good.

Vice’s attitude, as “explained” in an end-credits scene, appears to be that, if you have liberal or less than hard-line Republican values, you’ll automatically be on board with Adam McKay’s brand of wishy-washy, ineffectually “satirical” (there isn’t much of that) dramatisation of biography notes that could be more briefly scanned on Dick Cheney’s Wiki page.

Not knowing much about a significant and morally bankrupt political figure (is there any other kind?) oughtn’t to be a barrier to probing them, but you need to be willing to take some risks if you do. Vice is about as risky as any other linear biopic you’ve seen in the last couple of decades, but it thinks it’s above that because McKay scored with The Big Short (which succeeded in almost every respect that Vice fails).

So yeah, if you don’t have any insight into your pro/antagonist, it’s probably best to take a view, or you end up inscribing exactly the lack of definition you complain about to begin with. It doesn’t help that your leading man, stuffed full of pies and layered with prosthetics (apparently, Bale didn’t actually undergo open heart surgery, the wuss) is so diligent in his focus on the performance trees, he misses the woods of motivation and ends up more Ned Beatty than political mastermind and power behind the W throne.

In this regard, the best McKay can come up with is that Cheney, in his Yale-dropout, pugilistic mess of formative years, has actually been “styled” by a strong woman pushing him forward, Amy Adams’ Lyne Vincent Cheney. Hence her crude early speech (“That’s just the way the world is for a girl. I need you”) suggesting that, in his own backward way, McKay thinks this is an empowering, progressive (feminist?) text; the morals involved scarcely matter as long as you can point to some flag of positivity behind this profound culpability. At least there’s a vague edge later, as Cheney stands up for his lesbian daughter and refuses to campaign against gay marriage/rights. And then suggests his other daughter, running for a seat, opposes the same rights. Which means we have a presentation of the man as something of a model husband and parent (he’s the best father he can be to both his ideologically opposed daughters, quite a feat), but the rest remains inscrutable and ultimately as tepid in tone as Oliver Stone’s similarly (mis)conceived W.

Naturally, this is a dyed-in-the-wool Hollywood production; if Stone toes the party line for official versions of events, McKay’s hardly going to break ranks. So you’ll get nary a Truther whiff from Vice (But Dick Cheney saw something else that no one did; “He saw an opportunity” is the official 9/11 verdict). And you won’t come in sniffing distance of Bohemian Grove. Hell, you’ll even be confused as to why he keeps having heart attacks, since you have to go to Wiki to learn he was a three-packs-a-day man (he’s seen smoking a few times, but then, so is Lyn). As close as we get is the “acceptable” conspiracy of 2000 election fraud. McKay’s idea of heavy hitting seems to be having Jesse Plemons’ narrator turn out to be Cheney’s heart donor, which is about as irrelevant as it gets but is positioned as some kind of trump card (you see how he feeds off the innocent and thrives?) That narration is particularly irksome, as it attempts to make a virtue out of sounding knowing about knowing nothing.

McKay wants to focus on Cheney once has taken on the title role, which is understandable, but this means many of his activities are reduced to one-sentence-in-passing footnotes. There’s little of consequence about Haliburton, the shooting incident is about twenty seconds, and there’s a The Big Short approach to quick-glance takes on death taxes and climate change policies that concisely give the lowdown on the makers’ view of their recharacterisation. The Big Short managed to deliver indigestible and complex material in a relevant, amusing and instructive manner. Vice does none of that. You certainly aren’t going to come away with any insights, knowing something you didn’t know before or having a new perspective on any of the events Cheney masterminded. McKay seems to have set out his store with “Dick’s kinda bad. But he’s still vaguely human, right?” Which is exactly the movie Vice didn’t need to be. It makes it about as purposeful as J Edgar.

There aresome good moves here. Steve Carrell is a hit as Donald Rumsfeld (“Don’t worry, I’m like bed bugs. They’ll have to burn the mattress to get rid of me”; “You’re a little piece of shit” he tells Cheney when he’s finally forced out, and when Dick says he’s sorry, responds “Well, you know how I know you’re not? I wouldn’t be”). And with Sam Rockwell’s Dubya, a glimpse of the more irreverent and risky version of Vice (on this evidence, Rockwell should have led Stone’s film; it might have saved it from its forgettably sleepy fate). But Vice is as essential as 99 percent of other political pictures of the last twenty years (be they directly political or tackling relevant current subjects, usually the War on Terror), coasting on the idea that sitting on the right (as in, correct) side of the political spectrum is enough. And 99 percent of the time, no one wants to see them.

Vice’s eight Oscar nominations garnered just the one win, and I’m not entirely surprised. Good as Rockwell is, there’s just not enough of him, while Bale’s performance is probably the most technically impressive of the nominees, but that’s only half the battle, if you’re failing to convey anything about the man you’re playing. Original Screenplay, well it was a weak year. Hank Corwin’s editing here is nothing like the achievement of The Big Short, and while the picture plays with time frame a little, it’s not enough to make this feel other than standard fare (like the winner, funnily enough). Yeah, the makeup’s good, I’ll grant you. Wiki characterised Vice as a “biographical comedy-drama”, but it’s not very funny, and it’s too diluted to be dramatic. Like the other overtly political nominee of the year (BlacKkKlansman) it assumes its viewpoint is enough. Which, I suppose, it is. But only enough to get nominated.


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.

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.

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.

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 .

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

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.