Skip to main content

We need somebody to walk the clones.

Jojo Rabbit
(2019)

(SPOILERS) Not so much the banality of evil as of taking pot-shots at easy targets, Taika Waititi’s typically insubstantial, broad-brush, sketch-comedy approach isn’t the best of fits for the formulation of this self-styled “anti-hate satire”. The issue isn’t so much that it’s inappropriate or insensitive to broach material of Nazi persecution of the Jews comedically as that the manner in which it has been done here is so obvious as to be redundant. Waititi said his inspiration for making the movie was partly the statistics on those Americans who had never heard of Auschwitz; Jojo Rabbit is as cack-handed a way of going about informing them as Life is Beautiful.

The result of his impulse to express himself with explicit commentary is a muddle of tonal awkwardness and narrative lethargy. The Harvey-esque set-up, of ten-year-old Johannes/Jojo (Roman Griffin Davies), a budding young Nazi with an imaginary Hitler friend (played by Waititi himself, mugging shamelessly for the Fatherland) has a seed of potential, one overlaid onto Chrisine Leunens’ 2008 novel Caging Skies, such that Jojo discovers Jewish girl Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) hiding in his attic (actually hidden there by his mother Rosie, played by Scarlett Johansson).

But humour-wise, Jojo Rabbit is a one-joke premise played to its bluntest and least inventive potential, crystallised by Jojo’s payoff line “Fuck off, Hitler” as he boots his former pal out of a window. We all know Nazis are fuckers, and idiots, beholden to ridiculous, offensive and chilling ideas, which makes satirising them really easy, commendable and a goldmine of mirth, right? No, it makes satirising them largely tedious, predictable and puerile, if attacked from the same lazy starting point. It’s not really satire if it’s glaring and indisputable.

Much of the first hour of Jojo Rabbit is a stir and repeat of the wacky/stupid antics of its Hitler Youth, along with Jojo having the same circular conversation with Elsa about Nazis demonising of Jews (making a joke out of which gets stale the fourth or fifth time, let alone the fourteenth or fifteenth).

Korr is very good, but has very little to work with as she’s simply there to reflect/deflect Jojo’s ignorance and prejudice. Davis has too much placed on his shoulders. He lacks the timing to deliver Waititi’s gags (all of which are in the same self-satisfied style, irrespective of the character delivering them) and the range to make the emotional moments land (notably, when he finds his mother’s hanging corpse, Waititi treats the scene largely as a tableau – his stylistic fall-back – rather than relying on Davis’ performance).

Admittedly, going into a movie with preconceived notions can lead to one looking to confirm them, and I had my doubts on both the premise of Jojo Rabbit and the general wave of adulation that has buoyed Waititi for a few years now. I’ve found his recent films watchable but also infused by an off-putting air of smugness that comes from an unchecked authorial voice prone to smothering the material (so witness the demise of Steven Moffat).

In Jojo Rabbit, that reaches the stage of actually trying the patience, but what surprised me most was how inert large portions of the movie are. Waititi has the mantra of his message preceding him, yet he doesn’t really know what he’s doing with the material beyond waving that flag and a smattering of very elementary gags (there’s even a “one ball” one). He certainly fails to create any resonance, aside perhaps from the aforementioned moment of Jojo finding his mother’s body. Other sequences are painfully misjudged, such as Rosie acting out her husband’s return (Johansson’s limitations as a performer have never been more evident). Waititi doesn’t so much walk a line between sentiment and slapstick as dive into both with careless abandon, so both are equally ill-judged and bereft of effectiveness.

As such, I was surprised, briefly, when the Jojo Rabbit suddenly clicked in and seemed fully engaged during the sequence where Stephen Merchant’s Gestapo agent Deertz comes to inspect Jojo’s house, and Elsa makes the dangerous move of posing as Jojo’s dead sister. Suddenly, the material exhibits purpose and energy, with danger and stakes, and even the comedy clicks into a sure rhythm (the “Heil Hitler” exchanges). There’s even some nuance, courtesy of Sam Rockwell’s one-eyed army officer, evidently aware of the subterfuge being enacted.

But just as quickly, it’s gone again. It’s emblematic of Waititi’s facile approach that the “in” to Rockwell being sympathetic is that he’s secretly gay and therefore has an innate empathy for the persecuted (along with a love of flamboyant fashions and makeup). And that the initially promising soundtrack choices – the use of The Beatles’ German version of I Wanna Hold your Hand – culminate in the most overused of all anthems, Heroes, mimed by now liberated Jojo and Elsa. It’s the icing on a cake of sickly-sweet glibness.

Waititi has little apparent facility for writing or eliciting strong character work – as with the horrors of the Nazi ethos, if he keeps things broad and sufficiently at a distance, he and we can remain broadly, with the emphasis on broadly, comfortable and unchallenged – and his stylistic approach – sub-Wes Anderson tableaus and occasional use of “impactful” and usually-musically-accompanied slow motion – serve to emphasise just how one-dimensional he is as a director. The Nazi “satire” in Jojo Rabbit is about as sharp as your average adolescent activist’s nascent political insights, and the character work not really much more advanced. There are plenty of strong satires of the Nazis out there, from Ernst Lubitsch’s To Be or Not to Be to Mel Brooks’ The Producers, or even Brooks’ To Be or Not to Be. Jojo Rabbit is a long way from their territory, unfortunately.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.