Skip to main content

Hot tits on my milky tea, please.

Motherless Brooklyn
(2019)

(SPOILERS) Edward Norton’s extremely loose adaptation of Jonathan Lethem’s 1999 noir pastiche is uber-liberal in intent, making it uber-ironic that Norton should wade brazenly into a quagmire of white-saviour tropes. I’m generally on board with checking out anything “notoriously difficult” Norton appears in, even if his choices are occasionally regrettable (Collateral Beauty). He is, however, nothing if not weighed down by piercing intellect and concomitant social conscience, one he feels compelled to massage (he’s the kind of prominent activist who declares celebrities should “participate quietly” in such matters). Motherless Brooklyn has a lot going for it, but it’s ultimately sunk by that need to espouse noble causes.

Norton snapped up Lethem’s novel soon after publication; he doubtless would have made it sooner, had he not continually managed to get in the way of his own Hollywood profile (his most prominent pictures – American History X, Red Dragon, The Incredible Hulk – invariably inviting the “difficult and controlling” tag). Lethem’s hook, a PI with Tourette syndrome, was evidently the principle attraction to the actor, since he throws almost everything else out. Gone is the contemporary setting and a plot involving the mob and Buddhist monks, replaced by a 1950s milieu and a conspiracy centred on “master builder” Robert Moses, here renamed Moses Randolph (Alec Baldwin).

The actual Moses’ achievements as a New York city planner are mired in controversy, and Norton particularly draws on his displacement of residents and destruction of neighbourhoods, along with accompanying accusations of racism. You may wonder why Norton should be so interested in this character? Well, his granddad James Rouse represented, to young Ed, the complete and venerable opposite of such reckless intent. Motherless Brooklyn became, accordingly a “homage to things he cared about”. Rouse set forth city projects based on “planned communities” – which sounds horrific, whatever the intent – that appear to have been a considered and successful endeavour. He was in favour of integrated communities, and his most notable success, Columbia Maryland, ranks as the fifth best place to live in the US (as ever, I suspect these things depend entirely on who you ask).

Of course, one needs to recognise that Rouse rose to the status of the kind of figure likely to receive a presidential medal. He’s one Norton can balance as fundamentally opposed to his villain (Moses), which in itself suggests an embodiment of the Hegelian dialectic; in any Hegelian mechanism the reinforcement of the state is essential, and so it is that the federal government provides many of the jobs in Columbia. Would Norton be conscious of such machinations? He is obviously a very bright fellow, too bright for many filmmakers – who find him “difficult and controlling”, remember – but that doesn’t necessarily mean he questions the programming directly feeding his social conscience and prodding him towards ever-so valuable and honourable projects.

After all, Ed’s a Yale graduate and was a competitive rower there (probably not enough of a team player for the Skull and Bones, though). He’s a UN Goodwill Ambassador, buys into climate change and thinks Greta Grunberg is a little angel (the little part is correct). He drinks the Kool Aid, which may go some way to explain how he could end up producing a picture so patronising to the cause it espouses.

Norton’s Lionel Essrog is nicknamed “Freakshow” for his condition, and he represents the sort of ardent method actor’s role you’d have seen Dustin Hoffman pursuing in the mid-80s, followed by similar awards-baiting, disability-flourishing turns by the likes of De Niro and Pacino. Indeed, Lionel’s man-child savant aspect is dangerous ground (he’s at once streetwise and a pariah, as well as carrying an emotionally virginal quality that takes you back to the ingloriously halcyon days of De Niro in Awakenings). This is only compounded by associating his affliction with the affliction suffered by the black community (Michael K Williams is even trotted out to say as much). So Lionel, as their crusader and defender, becomes the type of figure Norton should have had the sense to steer clear of even were this a straight adaptation, let alone expressly sculpting it into one flaunting such tropes.

Instead, Norton seems to double down, as Lionel receives admiring words for the part of his brain in tune with jazz and has Gugu Mbatha-Raw dote all over him like a rash (Lionel, of course, is her protector and greatest ally). Quite aside from how dubious all this is, Norton’s personal interest in Moses gets in the way of his detective story, cluttering up Motherless Brooklyn’s two-and-a-quarter-hour running time with melodramatic diversions and attempts to explore the period’s social fabric (ie give a lecture).

It doesn’t help any either that the gist of Lionel’s investigation into why his mentor and detective agency boss Frank (Bruce Willis) got offed is quite clear early on, before further elaborating on these Chinatown-esque property machinations with even more Chinatown-esque scandalously illicit offspring. But while Norton is a serviceable director – much more so than in his previous picture, lightweight romcom Keeping the Faith – he brings none of the necessary economy of storytelling and fails to muster the inner tension fostered by a good mystery.

Several things keep the picture watchable through its longueurs, however. Firstly, and most importantly, is Norton’s tic-riddled performance, every bit as well observed as you would expect. Then there’s the cast he has assembled – mostly working for free apparently – including Alec Baldwin (familiarly authoritarian as Moses), Willem Dafoe (familiarly hyper as Moses’ brother Paul), Bobby Cannavale (familiarly duplicitous as fellow detective Tony), Leslie Mann (familiarly superfluous as Frank’s wife) and Fisher Stevens (familiarly diminutive as a heavy).

Motherless Brooklyn’s production was marred by a fire that cost a life, and the picture failed to make a profit on its release. It isn’t hard to work out why, as a vanity project that dissatisfies in all the departments its attempting to score. Control freak rather than Freakshow, Norton probably needed to step back in at least one of the producer-director-writer-actor departments, but he lets his obsessiveness confound the material.


Popular posts from this blog

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un

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.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls… dyin’ time’s here!

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985) Time was kind to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome . As in, it was such a long time since I’d seen the “final chapter” of the trilogy, it had dwindled in my memory to the status of an “alright but not great” sequel. I’d half-expected to have positive things to say along the lines of it being misunderstood, or being able to see what it was trying for but perhaps failing to quite achieve. Instead, I re-discovered a massive turkey that is really a Mad Max movie in name only (appropriately, since Max was an afterthought). This is the kind of picture fans of beloved series tend to loathe; when a favourite character returns but without the qualities or tone that made them adored in the first place (see Indiana Jones in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull , or John McClane in the last two Die Hard s). Thunderdome stinks even more than the methane fuelling Bartertown. I hadn’t been aware of the origins of Thunderdome until recently, mainly because I was