Skip to main content

But for me, the moments of stillness. That place. That’s the Kingdom of God.

Sound of Metal
(2020)

(SPOILERS) Trial, tribulation and trauma movies are the awards season’s bread-and-butter. Triumphs over adversity – or occasionally not, if you’re Hillary Swank – are a guarantee to attract attention and even honours. They rely on empathy, often cheaply obtained, and offer an actor the chance to show just how versatile they can be, while the audience may, if they’re lucky – or not, if Hillary Swank is starring – be put through the emotional mill, only to emerge with a comfortingly cathartic residue. In truth, this is much of a muchness, whether you’re pulling your manoeuvres on the crassly commercial end of the spectrum (The Theory of Everything) or the “uncompromisingly” indie. One will garner the plaudits for authenticity, but the distinctions involved are frequently little more than gradations on the scale from swaddling-wrapped to faux-rawness. In some respects, the latter can be the more aggravating experience, however, prone as it can be to dishing up a highly conventional narrative in new, but stone-washed, wineskins. Step forward, cymbals clashing, Sound of Metal.

I was put in mind of Best Actress Oscar contender Pieces of a Woman more than once during the movie. Both feature a protagonist undergoing traumatic events that lead to separation from their other half in tandem with general difficulties in relating as they are reduced to an interior, closed off or enraged state. Both pictures’ protagonists are also confronted by an elder who calls them to account regarding their path, and both finally see said protagonists reach a place of acceptance from which healing can take place. Both also offer a powerful “gimmick” to attract the attention of possibly jaded critics, used to such barefaced showcases. For Pieces of a Woman, it’s the thirty-minute birth scene. Here, it’s the innovative sound design, albeit simultaneously highly predictable (anyone betting subtitles will being to appear when RIz Ahmed’s Ruben learns to sign will be quids in) and inconsistent (while we encounter Ruben’s subjective loss of hearing, director Darius Marder elects not to maintain this choice throughout, presumably on the grounds that it would be too big an ask of the audience).

Marder hatched the story with Derek Cianfrance (the screenplay is credited to Darius and brother Abraham). They previously collaborated on The Place Beyond the Pines, and the languorous, in-search-of-an-editor quality of Cianfrance’s work is also present and correct here. The irony of the presentation and premise – metal-head drummer must adjust to a life-changing episode – is that Sound of Metal’s storytelling is actually deeply conservative. And often lacking in focus (hence the languorous-ness). There’s a prevailing sense of familiarity in Ruben’s personal journey and an absence of freshness beyond the acoustic trappings.

The early section, as Ruben’s hearing loss comes on very suddenly and he elects to ignore the warnings of both body and doctor, has the self-destructive demeanour of Leaving Las Vegas. So perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprised that, Clean and Sober style, Ruben is revealed as a recovering addict, checking in at a shelter attending to deaf addicts. Unfortunately, this addiction element frequently feels like an obscuring choice, blurring the lines between Ruben’s two conditions.

In some respects, that could be argued as an interesting thematic decision, since the picture appears to advocate the Christian-focussed values of the shelter. Ruben’s life path is implicitly identified as destructive, with its aggressively aural assault and grimdark tattoos, obsessive exercise and dietary regimen and refractively debilitating effects on girlfriend Lou (Olivia Cooke), who has been nervously scratching herself from anxiety (and has a history of self-harming). The Christian community, headed by benevolent, firm-but-fair Joe (Paul Raci) represents the opposite to Ruben’s realm. Even the contrasts in setting scream this: the noisy urban jungle vs the silence of nature. When Joe tells Ruben he seems like an addict and requests that he leave, after the latter returns from surreptitiously receiving cochlear implants and asks for a loan, his (reasonable) reasoning is that Ruben’s choice reinforces the idea of deafness as a handicap. There’s never any doubt that Ruben is making the wrong choice. And it’s difficult not to see him wearing his hearing apparatus and avoid thinking of cybernetic, transhumanist advancements designed to stunt our spiritual awareness (aside from which, it says little for his intelligence or the doctors’ diligence in detailing the procedure that he appears to expect a miracle cure).

I suspect Marder’s lesson is really one of paying attention to the turning points in one’s life, so as to minimise the stresses of clinging on to those things that no longer serves us. But it wouldn’t take very much – remove a lot of the language and add a more affirmative ending – to turn Sound of Metal into a faith-based movie. Ruben appears relatively content at the shelter until he sees a video of Lou working on music in Paris. He attempts to restore the previous situation, getting the implants and going to join her, but the implants prove distractingly erratic at best, and their reunion quickly gives way to realisation – in one of the movie’s best scenes, since it is played through recognition rather than overt communication – that they are no longer meant to be. His city surroundings assume a much-needed peace when Ruben finally switches off his implants in the last scene, so affirming the stillness Joe earlier invoked.

Every beat here is readily recognisable, but the shelter section is probably the most traditional in nature. Ruben passes from isolation to the status of a valued member of the community. Yet there are also odd plot tics here that lead nowhere or are ineffectively spun. He repeatedly disobeys protocols, such as using the Internet, suggesting there will be repercussions that never come; this is still continuing after presumably months there, since he has developed his signing skills and been asked to stay on as a teacher. Joe has also instructed him that part of his day will be spent sitting in his room alone, but aside from a donut-crushing first morning, we hardly see anything of his primary activity. Now, it may be the point that Ruben is failing to achieve the stillness Joe expects of him, but through more-or-less dropping this, Marder suggests he finds Joe’s (likely) insufferable boredom boring, or that he has found no way to integrate this element effectively.

Raci is the movie’s standout performance and is rightly receiving awards attention, even if he doesn’t stand a chance of winning. Both steely and gentle, his Nam veteran, recovering alcoholic might have seemed the stuff of clichés. Instead, he essays Joe with such sensitivity – the aftermath of telling Ruben he must leave, showing that being so firm has torn him apart inside – that he seems utterly authentic. Ahmed is clearly very dedicated and has mastered numerous areas for the part – signing, drumming, dietary – but he’s encumbered by the limitations of such own-worst-enemy types. While he’s very good – and certainly much more impressive than Oldman or Boseman, of the Best Actor nominees I’ve seen so far – I’m conscious that I’ve been more struck by him in other, less grandstanding roles. Cooke is contrastingly that much more affecting because she is required to be so suppressed and subdued. The scenes where Lou must ride the wave of Ruben’s frustration and anger, and then where she shows the wisdom to leave him with no option but to return to the shelter, are quite powerful. Also of note are Lauren Ridloff as a signing teacher and Mathieu Amalric, required to navigate his way through an exposition-heavy scene as Lou’s father.

With its disability-theme and very visible performances, it’s no surprise Sound of Metal has been winning the plaudits it has. I found its assumption of self-importance slightly disagreeable, however: as if its “weightiness” was a free pass to indulge itself in the telling, rather than getting to the damn point. Essentially, the raves aren’t wrong to highlight Ahmed, Raci (although Cooke deserves equal praise) and the “innovative” sound design, but behind that façade, Marder’s film is rather ordinary and routine.



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

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

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.

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