Skip to main content

I don't want to be in that bubble for my entire life.

The Souvenir
(2019)

(SPOILERS) Joanna Hogg’s autobiographical drama has been appearing on many best of 2019 lists, but I found myself resolutely unpersuaded by The Souvenir and her low-key, interior approach to “herself” as a young woman and the dependant relationship she gets into with an older man.

Hogg’s style is simultaneously docu-drama in its naturalism – the photography is so flat, you sometimes wonder if it might have been shot on video - and lacking in the immediacy and intimacy of character that might bring. That’s clearly intentional, part of the milieu she is depicting, but it means it’s very difficult to engage other than passively with her characters. I never felt as if I was watching a whole person on screen, so uninterested is Hogg in digging beneath the upper-middle-class veneer of form and behaviour she finds in herself.

I’ve seen complaints made about The Souvenir purely on the basis of the class status of Julie (Honor Swinton Byrne, Tilda’s daughter) and how her privilege is further distancing, but that kind of inverse snobbery really indicates more about the viewer’s prejudices than the picture itself. There’s a meta discussion going on in the film, of the artist as a young (naïve) woman feeling she should be making a film about Sunderland dockers, “ashamed of her own privilege” as she is and told she should “make a connection between your experience and the experience you’re trying to film”, and her adult self, Hogg recognising that the only way she can be true to who she is an artist is to discuss those experiences that are her own, even if they run the risk of appearing exactly what they are (privileged, elitist, exclusionary).

I don’t think any of that’s a problem with The Souvenir per se; the likes of Whit Stillman and Woody Allen has been accused of such remote self-indulgence and still produced highly engaging films. The Souvenir’s problem is that, as a film, it feels as ineffectual and unassuming as Julie herself when her “muse” (in terms of this film) Anthony (Tom Burke) isn’t the focus.

He, at least, in all his unvarnished assuredness and assumed sense of insight, is a magnetic presence, in no small part due to Burke’s marvellously measured, persuasively commanding monotone. We see clearly how he gives off the confidence of “knowing” and so imbues a sense of self-worth in others (Julie); “You are lost and you’ll be lost forever” he tells Julie after informing her how special and fragile she is, much to her doubt that she is anything other than unexceptional (in response to which we, as viewers, find ourselves nodding vigorously). Anthony works – he says – for the foreign office, and there are engaging vignettes when he’s on screen in all his airy pomposity, such as a conversation with Julie’s parents (one of whom is Tilda herself) about the IRA. On the other hand, Richard Ayoade’s cameo as a vaguely obnoxious filmmaker is too broad and self-conscious for the picture Hogg has fashioned.

And the “reveal” (it’s only a revelation to Julie) that Anthony is a junkie serves to underline the impasse of unspoken normalcy that precedes any real interaction in the picture. This distance, I suspect, is intended to resonate with the viewer, whereby one reads deeply into what isn’t said, isn’t shown and the lingering intervals where nothing much at all happens, but my response was mostly that this lack was all Hogg had to say. The kind of lack of anything to say that leads to a deeply autobiographical tale of how one doesn’t have anything to say (and only gets that through the influence of another, larger than life persona). The frame of The Souvenir is one of the oldest there is, and the only variant Hogg offers is to deflate everything that usually makes such tales of manipulation and addiction and obsession so compelling.

I wasn’t completely down on The Souvenir by any means. I admired the performances, even though I’m not sure if you can tell from this if Swinton Byrne will be a chip off the old block. There is something to be said for the capturing of reserve, particularly combined with an improvised approach, and the film does at least in part offer up some astutely-observed nuggets, but I can completely see why others compare Hogg’s films to watching paint dry. A film like this shouldn’t so much grip as mesmerise, but Hogg’s is quite resistible.


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.

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…

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.

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

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

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.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

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.