Skip to main content

Seriously? I just spat in your coffee.

Promising Young Woman
(2020)

(SPOILERS) I’ve been having little luck finding commendable Oscar-nominated fare this season, and Promising Young Woman is no exception. Heralded as a satire, Emerald Fennell’s movie would be better labelled a polemic, one with all the subtlety of the pillow used to smother protagonist Cassie halfway through the third act.

Attracting adjectives in the “brave” and “audacious” range, the picture comes armed with the loaded dice of a soft target – rapists deserve retribution – no one is likely to disagree with, such that it’s consequent suggestion – all men are potential rapists or at very least complicit in justifying the same, Chris Vernon and Marcus Mumford doubtless honourably excepted – is one the critical cognoscenti are sure to get behind, lest they’re accused of making excuses for those whose behaviour it condemns and so proving its point. And you know, fair call. At least that’s a strong point of view. Unfortunately, this same self-consciously “provocative” quality is in itself a mischaracterisation of daring; Promising Young Woman is more accurately responding to the latest “organic” movement and so “catching” the zeitgeist wholly mechanically, with all the nutritional zeal of reformed ham.

Had Fennell really mined the satirical potential here, then a clever and distinctive commentary might have emerged – perhaps even an audacious or brave one – rather than a tonal misfire. Promising Young Woman dances around disparate objectives, at times straight shooting, at others enjoying heightened absurdity, and others still embracing implausible plotting, before settling on sacrificial eulogising. Avenging angel Cassandra/Cassie (Carey Mulligan) lures potential rapists at clubs through feigning insobriety, only to turn the tables on them back at their places and lecture them on their predatory tactics.

Somehow – because Fennell is suggesting these are all beta males? – Cassie encounters no one who reacts violently to being put in their place (if her notebook is to be believed, she has engaged in this low-key vigilantism on hundreds of occasions). Which is very lucky, until it is not, although that situation represents a significant break with her routine. Would Cassie not go out armed with a Taser at least (no, because then the shock ending wouldn’t be guaranteed)? And are we supposed to assume that, duly chastened, her targets wouldn’t revert immediately to form? Fennell doesn’t explore this, although Sam Richardson’s characters refers to talk of her “psycho” behaviour getting around. Which begs the question. Does she really keep returning to the same bars again and again in different outfits on these numerous occasions?

Perhaps these issues are deliberate. Perhaps we’re supposed to examine Cassie critically in a way Fennell, as a debut feature director, has been unable to convey. If so, were she more of a visual stylist – a few shots of slo-mo gyrating male oafs and cinematographer Benjamin Kracun revealing a sometimes-poppy colour scheme don’t really count – who could suggest irony beyond soundtrack choices, the movie might have landed differently. But the problem with being generous to intention is that the plotting continually deflects assumptions of dexterity.

Cassie isn’t required to be wrong, to reflect on her own morality. Cassandra’s not complex. I suspect Fennell includes women Cassie sees as complicit – Madison (Alison Brie) and Dean Walker (Connie Britton) – partly to deflect accusations of a one-track tract, that Cassie is equal opportunities in denouncing those who perpetuate rape culture. And I assumed the insane lessons Cassie teaches them – leading Madison to think she might have been raped; suggesting the dean’s daughter is likewise endangered – are there to highlight that she may indeed be, as the dean suggests, a sociopath. After all, she is, isn’t she? She’s on a demented revenge spree and flitting between personalities at the drop of a hat. She’s Batman, even to the extent that she briefly hangs up the cowl.

But if that’s the case, is Fennell being sly or facile when she then narratively rebukes any objections to the treatments Cassie prescribes? The dean presents the entirely reasonable argument of presumption of innocence, one firmly demolished after the fact by the incriminating tape ex machina. It’s an introduction of evidence so risible, one kind of hopes Fennell had some other, non-literal intention, but I’m struggling to find it. This comes at a point when Cassie has renounced her wacko behaviour; in plot terms, therefore, it exclaims, “No, she was right, and here’s the proof” (through a hackneyed twist of an order usually reserved for a Joe Eszterhas script). And with it, there’s Madison confirming Cassie’s moral rectitude, shamed as she is into revealing this dark secret (and so providing confirmation that Cassie was right not to let dead friend Nina’s fate lie).

There’s probably a version of Promising Young Woman makes a virtue of this plotting, where the lurches in intent become coherent. If it was straightforward exploitation fare, with no pretensions to artistry, the daft twists and turns would likely have felt of a piece. There’s surely no doubt in any viewer’s mind that Ryan (Bo Burnham) is a bad seed as soon as he sips Cassie’s spit; worse still, he’s an inveterately irritating spit sipper. That he, the guy she was foolish enough to believe was a good egg, should be revealed at the scene of the crime she is haunted by, cheering it on, is as little surprise as it is laughably trite. At least Jodie Foster demanding her dog back or Ellen Page posing as scalpel-wielding minor didn’t attempt to sell themselves as above their genre conventions.

As far as I can tell, Clancy Brown is an undiluted good guy as her dad, but who knows? Certainly, Molina’s repentant lawyer is way too obvious. Again, if Fennell were a better director – or maybe not, and this was exactly how she saw it – this scene might have been better delivered, but the worst-of-the-worst’s epiphany seems much too calculated, and borderline parodic (although, I like the way Mulligan responds to his supplication, genuinely unnerved in a way she never is with those who do mean her harm).

It’s another of the picture’s variable messaging/plotting omissions that it structures the denouement, in which previously vilified justice is served after Cassie meets her end, as even possible. Fennell offers Cassie up as sacrifice to the cause, coding her as both avenger and victim, playing fast and loose with the rules of her fantasy depending on whether she wants to inflict cheap impact (Cassie must die because that’s “real”) or cheap impact (everyone is brought to book, at a wedding, which absolutely is not). As an edgy satire, l was put in mind of nothing so much as Peter Berg’s crude shockfest Very Bad Things.

Maybe Promising Young Woman is simply too acutely clever for me, its clumsy plotting an intentional façade, whereby it wasn’t suggesting any of the things I thought it was suggesting. Maybe we weren’t supposed to think Cassie had won ironically in the end (after all, she’s dead). Rather, that she dies because she’s a crazed sociopath who went too far (anyone in their right mind would have gone to the police with the evidence, or gone to the police with the defence attorney with the evidence. Which, as we know, wouldn’t have been dismissed this time, because the actual ending tells us as much…). I’m unconvinced, though. The only resonance here is cartoonish, in the manner of celebrating last year’s “deep” Best Picture Nominee Joker. Or better still, Harley Quinn; how clever of Promising Young Woman to sell itself with such pop bubble gum mimicry!

Indeed, Birds of Prey is a good point of comparison. Both attempt heightened visuals and fail to carry them through. Both attempt revenging characters but to obvious and sometimes puerile ends. Admittedly, Birds of Prey wasn’t part of any Oscar conversation, but then, neither should Promising Young Woman have been. And Birds of Prey at least had the good grace to demand far less time dissecting its relevance. At least it knew it was puffery. Even Mulligan’s performance isn’t all that special. How could it be? She can only work with what’s available. I’ll grant Fennell’s movie this much; as much as its choices may disappoint, as much as I expected more from it, it avoids a turn towards tedium. Which is more than I can say for most of this year’s Best Picture contenders. On the other hand, Promising Young Woman fits right in with them, in scrupulously woke terms, so full marks to Fennell for shrewd timing. 







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

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.

Just a little whiplash is all.

Duel (1971) (SPOILERS) I don’t know if it’s just me, but Spielberg’s ’70s efforts seem, perversely, much more mature, or “adult” at any rate, than his subsequent phase – from the mid-’80s onwards – of straining tremulously for critical acceptance. Perhaps because there’s less thrall to sentiment on display, or indulgence in character exploration that veered into unswerving melodrama. Duel , famously made for TV but more than good enough to garner a European cinema release the following year after the raves came flooding in, is the starkest, most undiluted example of the director as a purveyor of pure technical expertise, honed as it is to essentials in terms of narrative and plotting. Consequently, that’s both Duel ’s strength and weakness.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Ours is the richest banking house in Europe, and we’re still being kicked.

The House of Rothschild (1934) (SPOILERS) Fox’s Rothschild family propaganda pic does a pretty good job presenting the clan as poor, maligned, oppressed Jews who fought back in the only way available to them: making money, lots of lovely money! Indeed, it occurred to me watching The House of Rothschild , that for all its inclusion of a rotter of a Nazi stand-in (played by Boris Karloff), Hitler must have just loved the movie, as it’s essentially paying the family the compliment of being very very good at doing their very best to make money from everyone left, right and centre. It’s thus unsurprising to learn that a scene was used in the anti-Semitic (you might guess as much from the title) The Eternal Jew .

You are not brought upon this world to get it!

John Carpenter  Ranked For anyone’s formative film viewing experience during the 1980s, certain directors held undeniable, persuasive genre (SF/fantasy/horror genre) cachet. James Cameron. Ridley Scott ( when he was tackling genre). Joe Dante. David Cronenberg. John Carpenter. Thanks to Halloween , Carpenter’s name became synonymous with horror, but he made relatively few undiluted movies in that vein (the aforementioned, The Fog , Christine , Prince of Darkness (although it has an SF/fantasy streak), In the Mouth of Madness , The Ward ). Certainly, the pictures that cemented my appreciation for his work – Dark Star , The Thing – had only a foot or not at all in that mode.

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

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.

Sleep well, my friend, and forget us. Tomorrow you will wake up a new man.

The Prisoner 13. Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling We want information. In an effort to locate Professor Seltzman, a scientist who has perfected a means of transferring one person’s mind to another person’s body, Number Two has Number Six’s mind installed in the body of the Colonel (a loyal servant of the Powers that Be). Six was the last person to have contact with Seltzman and, if he is to stand any chance of being returned to his own body, he must find him (the Village possesses only the means to make the switch, they cannot reverse the process). Awaking in London, Six encounters old acquaintances including his fiancée and her father Sir Charles Portland (Six’s superior and shown in the teaser sequence fretting over how to find Seltzman). Six discovers Seltzman’s hideout by decoding a series of photographs, and sets off to find him in Austria. He achieves this, but both men are captured and returned to the Village. Restoring Six and the Colonel to their respective bodie