Skip to main content

Did you not just hand over a chicken to someone?

The Father
(2020)

(SPOILERS) I was in no great rush to see The Father, expecting it to be it to be something of an ordeal in the manner of that lavishly overpraised euthanasia-fest Amour. As with the previous Oscars, though, the Best Picture nominee I saw last turned out to be the best of the bunch. In that case, Parasite, its very title beckoning the psychic global warfare sprouting shoots around it, would win the top prize. The Father, in a year of disappointing nominees, had to settle for Best Actor. Ant’s good, naturally, but I was most impressed with the unpandering manner in which Florian Zeller and Christopher Hampton approached material that might easily render one highly unstuck.

The key qualification to the effectiveness of The Father as a piece of cinema, I think, is that it’s clearly the work of someone whose craft is the theatre. It’s this factor, for all that the film is well made, that prevents it from achieving any real added depth or dimension from use of the medium. You’ll doubtless be minded of Polanski’s Repulsion at times, as Zeller places you in the subjective position of Anthony’s progressive dementia, but you’ll rarely feel truly immersed, as you would with someone who truly engages with the possibilities of the form.

There are occasions when The Father’s theatrical origins (Zeller’s 2012 play La Père) are all to evident. And yet, at times, with the almost Pinter-esque sense of dislocation of time and place Anthony encounters (for example, early on when Mark Gatiss’ shifty – is there any other Gatiss? – “intruder” announces himself in Anthony’s flat) the effect is quite palpable and unnerving, because we aren’t yet at a point where we’re keyed into the rhythms of Zeller charting his protagonist’s failing mind. Is Gatiss, perhaps, a housebreaker who has eavesdropped on Anthony’s particulars and plans to take more from him than simply a wristwatch? Even later, Zeller encourages us to question the timings and sequences we’re surveying, so jumbled are the personas and identities of those Anthony knows or doesn’t (and in contrast to a surrealist approach, where this might leave one simply disorientated, there’s never a sense The Father doesn’t ultimately cohere; it’s simply that Anthony is unable to integrate or perceive the elements).

The converse are those junctures where the performative nature of the piece is foregrounded, where Zeller, perhaps inadvertently, draws attention to this being little more than a piece of filmed stagecraft, and you feel you’re being acted “at”. Notable examples include Anthony tapdancing for Imogen Poots’ carer/daughter. Less of a failure of performance, and more of writing, is Anthony slipping into a childlike state and asking for “Mummy”; however sincerely played, it’s immediately a storytelling cliché of diminishment and degeneration.

Another cliché is the family tragedy, and frankly an unnecessary encumbrance to add “mystery” and drama where there’s quite enough already; the most enduringly sinister element of the piece is perhaps that Paul (Rufus Sewell, but amalgamating with Gatiss in Anthony’s mind) may not only have been psychologically but also physically abusing Anthony (certainly, what we see of him “objectively” suggests he’s capable of such behaviour).

Aside from allowing Anthony to grandstand a little too much at times – and obviously, his real Oscar-winning turn this year was his pretending to get the jab on camera – the cast don’t put a foot wrong. Even Gatiss, ever one to cultivate the worst kind of ham tendencies, makes a good fit (although, you wonder at the Royston Vasey qualities of any care home where Bill would be working). In particular, the schism of Anthony confusing daughter Anne (Olivia Colman) with caregiver Laura (Olivia Williams, also Poots) and care home nurse Catherine works because there’s a passing similarity between Colman and Williams. It’s very easy to see Colman’s Anne reaching the point of being unable to cope, and also the seeds that give forth Sewell’s more malignant responses.

There’s overwriting at times; the repeated punctuations of “Paris. They don’t even speak English there” and “How long do you intend to hang around here getting on everybody’s tits?” are very much stage stylings, while “I feel as if I’m losing all my leaves” is a beautiful line, but too poetic for its chosen context. Some of the transitions are superbly achieved, particularly of location (from Anthony’s flat to Anne’s to the care home), such that each progression reflects that, for all Anthony’s initial intransigence (“I’m not leaving my flat!”), he inevitably wilts in the face of failing faculties.

Ludovico Einaudi’s score evokes both Philip Glass and Michael Nyman amid classical cues, lending the piece alternatively a discordant and elegiac quality. It also underlines the inevitability of Anthony’s downturn, a kaleidoscope that will only further fracture. One might suggest creating a puzzle from Anthony’s mental state is itself insensitive on the writers’ parts, but I’d take the view that such an objection ultimately submits to The Father’s ability to inspire empathy for a situation, beyond simply demanding it in a glib “because it’s sad” manner that is Hollywood’s forte. As for the two Oscar wins, they picked correctly on both counts of the options that night (a rare thing), but perhaps more of the attention should have been focussed on the Adapted Screenplay than Ant’s record-breaking aged thesp.


The 2021 Best Picture Nominees ranked:

1. The Father

2. The Trial of the Chicago 7

3. Minari

4. Sound of Metal

5. Mank

6. Promising Young Woman

7. Judah and the Black Messiah

8. Nomadland


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