Skip to main content

As in the hokey kids’ show guy?

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood
(2019)

(SPOILERS) I don’t think Mr Rogers could have been any creepier had Kevin Spacey played him. It isn’t just the baggage Tom Hanks brings, and whether or not he’s the adrenochrome lord to the stars and/or in Guantanamo and/or dead and/or going to make a perfectly dreadful Colonel Tom Parker and an equally awful Geppetto; it’s that his performance is so constipated and mannered an imitation of Mr Rogers’ genuineness that this “biopic” takes on a fundamentally sinister turn. His every scene with a youngster isn’t so much exuding benevolent empathy as suggestive of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’s Child Catcher let loose in a TV studio (and again, this bodes well for Geppetto). Extend that to A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood’s conceit, that Mr Rogers’ life is one of a sociopathic shrink milking angst from his victims/patients in order to get some kind of satiating high – a bit like a rejuvenating drug, on that score – and you have a deeply unsettling and perverse monstrosity of a movie.

Who knows Hanks’ motives for playing Mr Rogers. The adreno-angle was not yet widely broadcast, but his degenerate fetish for photographing items of clothing at road sides, his response to accuser Isaac Kappy’s demise, and his appearance on Jimmy Kimmel had all been duly noted. Perhaps he thought someone so universally beloved would clear up any “misconceptions” through osmosis (hey, it earned him a Golden Globe nomination – he even managed a subsequent Oscar nod – although the debit was Ricky Gervais accusing the entire assembly of being paedos). Or perhaps he actively intended to besmirch the legacy of Mr Rogers, presenting him in exactly the manner he appeared to me here (many do genuinely seem to adore the movie, so go figure). Sully – ahem – those Godfearing, ultra-benevolent values, burying them beneath a smog of gimlet-eyed insincerity and the kind of impression of the man that could doubtless be bested by any diligent seven-year-old. Or their pet turtle.

I first became aware of Mr Rogers, ironically enough, due to Joe Dante’s classic The ’Burbs, a tale warning how we shouldn’t jump to conclusions about very public creeps until it turns out our suspicions are entirely justified. Hanks gives possibly his best performance in the movie – it’s a comic performance, so he naturally nurses no fond memories of the experience – and at one point, he awakes from a Satanic nightmare (hmmm) to the dulcet crooning of Mr Rogers. Latterly, I saw the very good 2018 documentary on the man, Won’t You Be My Neighbour? Which, as documentaries often do, made entirely redundant any inclination to dramatise the subject matter and simultaneously spurred Hollywood on to do exactly that.

Besides the difficulty of attempting to mimic genuineness – since acting is itself artifice, you need a very fine thesp indeed to reproduce something so mercurial and inimical to the medium, or simply a very nice one – Hanks, who is nothing if not plump, has been made up to resemble The Hood off Thunderbirds. I can’t stress this enough, but rather than attentive warmth, Hanks exudes clipped, reserved vacuity: a hollow shell. Mr Rogers’ habit of taking photos of his guests only puts one in mind of actual Tom’s (or it his twin brother’s now?) depraved habit: “Can I take your picture?” asks Mr Rogers of a small boy. Wouldn’t you rather take one of his distressed, abandoned sock, Tom?

The way in to exploring the man is ostensibly Tom Junod’s 1998 article for Esquire, Can You Say… Hero? The knock-on of this is that the movie isn’t really about Mr Rogers very much; it’s about Junod, reconceived as Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys, sporting far too many teeth), and repurposed in a highly Hollywood, demographically-sensitive manner (so Lloyd’s wife Andrea – Susan Kelechi Watson – is black, and wiser and more knowing than her man-child husband in every conceivable way). Lloyd also has daddy issues (Chris Cooper as an alcoholic who walked out on his wife as she was dying, and who is revealed as dying too, so Lloyd can reconnect in a profound, or facile, way).

Nothing about Lloyd’s journey is engaging, but it’s still infinitely more successful than anything depicting Mr Rogers and his world. A scene where a couple of kids on the subway lead the entire compartment in a serenade of his theme tune is presumably designed to evoke the similarly botched Tube sequence in Darkest Hour, but the way Hanks is looking at them, the only wonder is that Mr Rogers doesn’t instantly get mugged and left bleeding and battered on the train car floor. It’s very lucky he didn’t offer a “Can you tell me about your special friend?” the way he earlier did Lloyd.

Inevitably, Lloyd’s life is radically improved by his contact with the inquiring Uncle Tom – “People like you don’t care for humanity, do you?” asks Enrico Colantoni’s Bill Isler, Fred’s business partner at the outset – while any right-minded viewer will have moved across to the opposite side of the room, far far from the TV, in mounting horror at the unwholesome proceedings. Marielle Heller’s batting average was untarnished hitherto – The Diary of a Teenage Girl and Can You Ever Forgive Me? – so I’m sure she’ll bounce back from this travesty. Hanks, though, even if only for this, deserves a long stay in Guantanamo.


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.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

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…

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.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

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

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.

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.

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.