Skip to main content

I made a crazy risk, a gamble, and it’s about to pay off.

Uncut Gems
(2019)

(SPOILERS) Time for another ADD-addled exercise in nihilism from the Safdie brothers. Only this time, it’s anchored not so much by a head-turning as an in-your-face, yelling, kicking, screaming, fully-committed, fully-caffeinated, dazzling but utterly exhausting performance from Adam Sandler. Uncut Gems has received many plaudits, and those for Sandler are entirely deserved – it’s a highly convincing piece of acting, one that ought to have merited an Oscar nod – but the film as a whole merely reconfirmed my takeaway from the also-acclaimed Good Time; that the Safdies’ sensibility, if you can call it that, since it suggests something with some degree of restraint or sensitivity, is probably not for me.

The desire to put viewers through two-and-a-quarter suffocating hours of Sandler’s inveterate gambler’s successive attempts to undo himself is a fairly twisted, sadistic enterprise on their part, and thus one you’re relieved to be released from, by any narrative means available. If you engage with their mission statement, then Uncut Gems undoubtedly quite an achievement, but I come down on the side of those criticisms, the few and far between ones, that the picture is all surface bluster. It’s all about the freneticism and the breathless chase, without pause for an interior view that isn’t up the lead character’s bottom – unless you call his minute of “I’m so sad. I’m so fucked up” wallowing after being beaten up introspection – or reflection enough to consider what’s under the hood of this character, and what makes him tick, what fuels his addiction. As such, Uncut Gems is rather shallow, inducing a narcotic high but a rather unpleasant one. More akin to a panic attack brought on through sniffing glue.

Sandler’s Howard Ratner is the movie’s engine, all fired up and raring to go, but that’s all the Safdies have got. At times, with Howard’s need to balance his various books as he evades or doesn’t his loan shark brother-in-law Arno (a glassy-eyed Eric Bogosian) and tries to pull himself out of whichever insane new bet or deal he has made while juggling his overloaded personal life, I was put in mind of Carlito’s Way – the ending of that film surely had some influence on this one’s – but that’s an infinitely more elegant, considered work.

The Safdies pride themselves on their grubbiness and no doubt wish they were actually living in the 70s. Even when they pull virtuoso moves – macro shots opening and closing the movie – they’re weighted towards crudity (a colon exam, passing through the bullet hole in Howard’s head) rather than the sublime (the precious uncut opal Howard has purchased, somewhat less precious than he had hoped). This circular motif also brings to mind their structure for Good Time, but the only thematic impulse one could take away from Uncut Gems would be a glib one (the picture opens extravagantly on the mining of the opal, but aside from Kevin Garnett interrogating Howard on his profit margins, the supply chain of precious gems is left unturned). As for the final “shocking” moments, the only surprise would have been if the happy ending Howard suddenly seems to be heading for had happened (particularly since this is the second time the picture has played the card of the unlikely bet paying off, following “the dumbest fucking bet I’ve ever heard”).

There are good performances throughout, from Lakeith Stanfield as an associate of Howard’s (bringing him Garnett), from Fox and Menzel, from Judd Hirsch as Howard’s father-in-law, from Bogosian, and from authentic neighbourhood flavour in the likes of Keith Williams Richard’s vicious enforcer and Wayne Diamond as a rich gambler. And there are some smart conceits; if the run around at Howard’s daughter’s school play doesn’t really distinguish the setting from the threat because everything is at the same pitch, the idea of the family Passover dinner, with Arno glowering at him on neutral ground, is neatly conceived. Daniel Lopatin’s jazz-synth score, meanwhile, manages to work on the nerves as much as the directors’ other choices, heightening rather than diminishing the antic spell, entirely indifferent to the frenzied events it accompanies.

I don’t doubt the Safdies are masters of achieving exactly their desired effect, but whether that effect is a laudable one is open to debate. At one point, during a moment of regret on Howard’s part after he has dispensed with girlfriend Julia (Julia Fox) and suggested he and soon-to-be-ex-wife Dinah (Idina Menzel) should try again, she informs him, “I think you are the most annoying person I’ve ever met. I hate being with you. I hate looking at you. If I had my way, I would never see you again”. It isn’t difficult to apply that to Uncut Gems as a whole.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

Schnell, you stinkers! Come on, raus!

Private’s Progress (1956) (SPOILERS) Truth be told, there’s good reason sequel I’m Alright Jack reaps the raves – it is, after all, razor sharp and entirely focussed in its satire – but Private’s Progress is no slouch either. In some respects, it makes for an easy bedfellow with such wartime larks as Norman Wisdom’s The Square Peg (one of the slapstick funny man’s better vehicles). But it’s also, typically of the Boulting Brothers’ unsentimental disposition, utterly remorseless in rebuffing any notions of romantic wartime heroism, nobility and fighting the good fight. Everyone in the British Army is entirely cynical, or terrified, or an idiot.

Isn’t it true, it’s easier to be a holy man on the top of a mountain?

The Razor’s Edge (1984) (SPOILERS) I’d hadn’t so much a hankering as an idle interest in finally getting round to seeing Bill Murray’s passion project. Partly because it seemed like such an odd fit. And partly because passion isn’t something you tend to associate with any Murray movie project, involving as it usually does laidback deadpan. Murray, at nigh-on peak fame – only cemented by the movie he agreed to make to make this movie – embarks on a serious-acting-chops dramatic project, an adaptation of W Somerset Maugham’s story of one man’s journey of spiritual self-discovery. It should at least be interesting, shouldn’t it? A real curio? Alas, not. The Razor’s Edge is desperately turgid.

It’s not as if she were a… maniac, a raving thing.

Psycho (1960) (SPOILERS) One of cinema’s most feted and most studied texts, and for good reason. Even if the worthier and more literate psycho movie of that year is Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom . One effectively ended a prolific director’s career and the other made its maker more in demand than ever, even if he too would discover he had peaked with his populist fear flick. Pretty much all the criticism and praise of Psycho is entirely valid. It remains a marvellously effective low-budget shocker, one peppered with superb performances and masterful staging. It’s also fairly rudimentary in tone, character and psychology. But those negative elements remain irrelevant to its overall power.

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

Look out the window. Eden’s not burning, it’s burnt.

Reign of Fire (2002) (SPOILERS) There was good reason to believe Rob Bowman would make a successful transition from top-notch TV director to top-notch film one. He had, after all, attracted attention and plaudits for Star Trek: The Next Generation and become such an integral part of The X-File s that he was trusted with the 1998 leap to the big screen. That movie wasn’t the hit it might have been – I suspect because, such was Chris Carter’s inability to hone a coherent arc, it continued to hedge its bets – but Bowman showed he had the goods. And then came Reign of Fire . And then Elektra . And that was it. Reign of Fire is entirely competently directed, but that doesn’t prevent it from being entirely lousy.