Skip to main content

Now, stop stealing things, do your fucking homework and find some decent friends.

Hillbilly Elegy
(2020)

(SPOILERS) A danger with fashioning Oscar bait is that it can be instantly called out for undisguised cynicism and thus immediately ignored. That appears to be the fate of Hillbilly Elegy, in which Ron Howard further evidences his journeyman “versatility” with a tale of rednecks – sorry, mountainfolk – and their trials and tribulations. Well, apart from regular nominee Glenn Close and her prosthetic ankle tits.

JD: You’re a shitty mom, and so are you.

I reference the redneck slur intentionally; it’s implicit in this adaptation of JD Vance’s 2016 memoir that his recall for a summer internship interview is the consequence of taking offence at its use during a dinner. The staff are evidently concerned about appearing prejudiced and thus trip over themselves not to be called out. If we applied that metric to the oeuvre of Little Ronnie Howard, it would be demanding equal status for the intensely average, imperceptible talent troughing out mediocrity year after year. It does, after all, have its place. It even wins Oscars.

JD: You’re a good Terminator.

And to be completely fair, I’ve enjoyed a few of Howard’s movies (Splash, Ransom, Rush, Solo: A Star Wars Story), but I was aware as far back as Willow that he wasn’t nearly as versatile as he’d like to be. Hillbilly Elegy is closer to the wheelhouse, in inorganically heart-warming terms, of his early hit Parenthood. But where that movie was content to serve as a lightweight soufflé of observational comedy, he’s here straining for something more profound. When Little Ronnie tries for profound, the results can be outright disastrous (A Beautiful Mind). He avoids that this time, fortunately, but take away the hillbilly sheen (if you can call it that) and you’ve seen this story many times before. In the 80s, Hillbilly Elegy would probably have starred Debra Winger or Meryl Streep and featured a score of similarly indecent uplift as the one by Hans Zimmer and David Fleming.

I hadn’t realised going in this was an autobiographical tale, and I suspect the critical mauling it received is less about the film’s overall quality or the Little Ronnie factor than its status – albeit, unarguably watered down and shorn of any overt politics by dyed-in-the-wool liberal Howard – as a conservative-leaning piece (“Gainful employment was cramping her styleis uttered at one point, aimed as a barb at mom). JD (played equally strongly by Owen Asztalos and Gabriel Basso as adolescent and adult versions respectively) reflects on his Ohio upbringing with sister Lindsay (Haley Bennett) and a drug addict mum Bev (Amy Adams). Hard-nosed but decent matriarch gran Mamaw (Close) lives just down the street and Papaw (Bo Hopkins) up it a little way. Told in flashbacks, the picture gradually apprises us of how JD made his way to Yale through the Rock of Gibraltar that was his Mamaw and her southwards-extending bosom.

Mamaw: Cause we’re hill people, honey. We respect our dead.

And as far as that goes, it’s reasonably engaging. The problem is Adams. Or Adams’ character. Hers is an overfamiliar type: the hopeless addict (albeit the coda informs us Bev has been sober six years at the time of release). Most prolifically, it characterised Nic Cage’s Oscar grab Leaving Las Vegas. Invariably, empathy only extends so far in such dramatic rehearsals; they may accurately reflect the character’s struggle, but more crucially, they make for an increasingly tiresome viewing experience. Adams is immensely talented, but this druggy schtick became old quickly in Sharp Objects and rather recalls Meryl in Ironweed /Postcards from the Edge mode. Suffering may, within reason, win you Oscars, but it can also put the Academy right off you.

JD is called upon to return home after Bev ODs, which annoyingly coincides with his need to get that aforementioned summer internship in order to pay his way through uni. Episodes of mom’s historic train-wreck behaviour pile up as testimony towards her current state. This is accompanied by a mostly unsuccessful – because there isn’t much to it – thread of family history detective work in terms of her causative emotional traumas. Close successfully chews the scenery and spits it out, her fright perm and glasses somewhat resembling Robin Williams in drag, and it’s an effective performance (which didn’t win her a Golden Globe).

Mamaw: Kiss my ruby-red asshole.

In the end though, you can’t help but shrug. All very commendable, and nice that the main parties have sorted out their lives, and surely a positive that Hollywood doesn’t have licence to mock hillbillies. But at least there might have been something to discuss, whichever way you fall on it, if the movie offered a sampling of the memoir’s outspokenness. Hillbilly Elegy falls squarely into the indifference that characterises Howard at his most consistent.

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.

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.

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

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

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…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism