Skip to main content

I have a cow, but I hate bananas.

The Laundromat
(2019)

(SPOILERS) Steven Soderbergh’s flair for cinematic mediocrity continues with this attempt at The Big Short-style topicality, taking aim at the Panama Papers but ending up with a mostly blunt satire, one eager to show how the offshore system negatively impacts the average – and also the not-so-average – person but at the expense of really digging in to how it facilitates the turning of the broader capitalist world (it is, after all based on Jake Bernstein’s Secrecy World: Inside the Panama Papers Investigation of Illicit Money Networks and the Global Elite).

As per Traffic and Contagion, Soderbergh illustrates his big idea via several “human” stories, centremost being a mannered Meryl Streep trying to get to the bottom of why there isn’t any insurance money after her husband James Cromwell drowns and finding the answer in obfuscating offshore shell companies. Or rather, failing to find it there. Streep’s usually at her best when she has something dramatic and meaty to dig into, but her bumbling Miss Marple pensioner is something of a cypher. She over-compensates for this by hamming it up as one of the little people – not really her scene – in the most irritating fashion (and that’s beside her dual role reveal, courtesy of Latino brownface; but hey, everyone’s doing it, just ask the Canadian Prime Minister). Remember back around the time of She-Devil, when it was suggested Meryl couldn’t do comedy? The intervening thirty years will dissolve before your eyes.

To illustrate the truly international nature of this corruption, there are also suspect Chinese and African parties involved. Businessman Nonso Alonzo attempts to dissuade his daughter from telling her mother about his salacious behaviour towards her best friend by giving her a company worth $20m. Only, when she checks up on its assets, there’s only $37 in there: a cautionary story about the perils of bearer shares! Rosalind Chao makes Matthias Schoenaerts’ unlikely Brit (more through his dialogue than accent; he was very good in Far From the Madding Crowd a few years back) regret attempting to pull a fast one on her organ harvester in a rather shrug-worthy “shock” piece. Neither really justifies the time spent – if this were The Big Short, we’d have Margot Robbie explaining bearer shares in two minutes and have done with it – while in contrast, subjects such as the line between tax avoidance and tax evasion, and multiple directorships get relatively short shrift (one aside notes “She was the director of 25,000 companies”).

Where The Laundromat nearly works, though, is in the Carry On Panama antics of an outrageously accented Gary Oldman and Antonio Banderas as law firm partners Jürgen Mossack and Ramón Fonseca respectively, blithely amoral and unwilling to take any responsibility for their actions as they talk us through their studious lack of client due diligence and numerous dubious practices. This is where we sail closest to The Big Short territory, since arguably the most effective way to tut at immoral and unethical behaviour is having those engaged in it revel in their actions (see also The Wolf of Wall Street). There’s an appealingly cartoonish flippancy to these scenes – fifty years ago, Terry-Thomas might have played one of them – but they don’t go far enough. Indeed, the high point might be the opening spiel, with Banderas giving man the secret of fire while he explains the birth of credit.

Scott Z Burns also wrote the very good The Informant! for Soderbergh (and the decidedly more average Contagion and Side Effects), so there’s no reason to think he can’t reproduce a sharply satirical tone, but The Laundromat appears to have got away from him in much the way offshore affairs have escaped serious movie scrutiny over the years – aside from the tried and tested use of a Cayman or Swiss bank account as a means to secrete the third act loot. He and his director haven’t really found the story in the scandal, nor have they netted a sense of outrage.

There’s perhaps a glimmer of it right at the end, when the finger is pointed closer to home (“So where did these ideas come from? Where most ideas come from: The United States of America”). This is easily the picture’s sharpest “tirade”, as Oldman and Banderas set forth the winners in all this: “The United States. The biggest tax haven in the world. Delaware. Nevada. Wyoming. How much due diligence is happening there?” It could have gone further, though, and should have, if it really had a desire to give the subject more than a passing glance; the billions the largest companies avoid in taxes are duly noted, but without commenting on the de rigueur onshore tax incentives and breaks designed to ensure businesses remain or set up shop in that particular country or region. If you’re going to start your film with the barter system, you oughtn’t to short change your audience at the other end.

Meryl delivers a scripted to-camera clean-up appeal at the conclusion, in a straight-faced manner rather belied by our having already heard how the director and writer have Delaware companies (but it’s okay, their Delaware companies were set up for legit reasons). And one can’t help think she has a bit of a cheek portraying herself as “one of us” (as opposed to occupying the same status as the elites and politicians she “courageously” sets her sights on). Hers is the glibness of hollow words. But then, what did you expect from Soderbergh? Passion? Its absence might be why The Laundromat is a bit of a let-down. 


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

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There